PDA

View Full Version : D20 system intergrated in realisted combat mode for KOTOR III !


Windu Chi
11-11-2005, 05:14 AM
When I posted last time with the thread, ''realisted combat or D20''.I did"nt realise the importance of D20 system to realism in a game like KOTOR. So with time to think of the usefullness of the D20 system, I came to the realization that by combing D20 with free will combat it will make a exceptional Jedi Knight game concerning the combat portion of the game. Well I imagine this combination will work like ; in a combat situation if you swing your weapon to hit the enemy at a specific region on their body d20 will determine if you will hit that area or miss that specific area, but in a consitent realisted effect ,base on the combat levels/other skills ;defense, offense(this should be a included attribute in KOTOR III) dexterity, strength, intelligence ( this will determine how good your character can use the combat skills and adapt those skills) for a specific combat situation) and wisdom( this determines what right combat skills to use in the combat situation) you aquire/learn in the game that will determine the outcome in a specific combat situation.

Also I hope the developers READ this post to include these ideas, because I believe this make a great game that will have a big return.

:lsduel: :lsduel:

Prime
11-11-2005, 09:47 AM
I, and I think you will find many others, do not want any twitch based combat systems in the KOTOR series.

Jeff
11-11-2005, 09:57 AM
I, and I think you will find many others, do not want any twitch based combat systems in the KOTOR series.
Prime is right here. I don't think anybody wants the combat system from KotOR to be changed, only enhanced.

Hallucination
11-11-2005, 11:51 AM
I, and I think you will find many others, do not want any twitch based combat systems in the KOTOR series.
Same here. I think that your system is even worst than your JK idea, because in JK when you hit you kill, but if it was like your new idea its hitting a lot of times and 'missing' even though you took off someone neck.

Amor
11-11-2005, 12:44 PM
I, and I think you will find many others, do not want any twitch based combat systems in the KOTOR series.

As the others, I agree with Prime. There's a charm by the KotOR battle system. And It should never change, it may improve, but the setup itself MUST not change!

Vladimir-Vlada
11-11-2005, 01:49 PM
How many more of these damn threads about changing combat to the crappy Jedi Academy one in KOTOR are we going to get?

Please close this...

FiEND_138
11-11-2005, 02:03 PM
^
HA! & it's still the same loaded question.....

RobQel-Droma
11-11-2005, 02:05 PM
A little bit better Windu6, but still- it sucks. At least you didn't start calling the combat system names, but still, the whole idea is just a different method of making it a button mashing game. Stick with it, just the way it is. I don't really care if it changes one singe bit.

RedHawke
11-11-2005, 11:54 PM
I have to agree with the others any sort of "realisted" combat in KOTOR III would be really bad...

So with time to think of the usefullness of the D20 system, I came to the realization that by combing D20 with free will combat it will make a exceptional Jedi Knight game concerning the combat portion of the game.
Pure RPG's are not FPS or action games, they are not supposed to require button mashing or tests of reflexes to progress the storyline.

The D20 system will never allow, by it's very nature, for any sort of 'realisted' combat system that you seem to desire. This is not going to happen... I'm sorry but lets leave Jedi Academy gameplay to Jedi Academy, and KOTOR gameplay to KOTOR. ;)

It seems to me that many of you need to realize the roots of the RPG... I hear countless posters whining about poor graphics and wanting "flashy" visuals, and fluid animations.

RPG's are at their core tabletop PnP style games converted to be playable on a PC, they are not known for graphics, they are very primitive dialogue driven games that have never been known for their eyecandy. Many of the RPG's in history only allowed movement in 4 directions, and combat was a poorly animated pixelated monster appearing on the screen in front of you and combat would be just numbers on some part of the screen, you might never even see your PC, let alone any combat animations.

NWN, the Baldurs Gate Games, and others of their like, came along and gave us some nice(r) eyecandy, until KOTOR came along and spoiled us with all that it had... now like ol' Oliver Twist some of you are now asking for "more" instead of just being glad for what you have. :)

Just my 2 cents! :D

lukeiamyourdad
11-12-2005, 12:08 AM
Wow, this poll is made to play on people's feelings about freedom...

No, no changes please. Ugh, I do agree with Vlad, things are getting annoying with the number of these threads...

TreeX
11-12-2005, 12:57 AM
what luke and vlad said basically.

If you so want Jedi Knight style gaming go get the damn JK2 and JK3 -_-...







... I got em XD

Blaze629
11-12-2005, 02:07 AM
I, and I think you will find many others, do not want any twitch based combat systems in the KOTOR series.
Count me in here.

Prime is right here. I don't think anybody wants the combat system from KotOR to be changed, only enhanced.
Not many of us do anyway. I just want enhancements as well. New and multiple animations for standard and special attacks etc. would be an order. :)

The Grey Ranger
11-13-2005, 01:05 AM
If I want to play a twich shooter I'll load an FPS or go play a platformer. I play RPG's for the story not to button mash

Soulforged
11-13-2005, 02:11 AM
The D20 system will never allow, by it's very nature, for any sort of 'realisted' combat system that you seem to desire. This is not going to happen... I'm sorry but lets leave Jedi Academy gameplay to Jedi Academy, and KOTOR gameplay to KOTOR. ;)

Sorry to break up everyone's ideas, but the biggest D20 game ever to be realised, the biggest epic, will have some different and fresh ideas. I'm talking about "Dungeon and Dragons Online", based on Eberron set. It will implement a mixed system. All the rules still apply, but now if you want your character to do something (and your group to work togheter) you'll have to take a decision and do it yourself. Like blocking an attack, when blocking your shield defense still determines if you're succesful or not, but now your character will not block by default, so the bonus defense provided by your shield will apply only when you make effective use of it.
I think that the same system should be applied to all the others D20 games, not to make it more realistic, because it will never be realistic, but to make it more dinamyc and interactive, just my opinion, but the system is suffering changes. :lsduel:

The Grey Ranger
11-13-2005, 04:10 AM
I think the system used in both KOTOR's works pretty well. I'm not in the slightest convinced that it needs this sort of "improvement" <spits>. The system isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed in this fashion.

YertyL
11-13-2005, 04:46 AM
Well, with a JKA system exactly this is not gonna happen::lsduel:
If you yourself direct your swings there will only very occasionally be any sort of parrying/dueling, simply because you cannot do a precise hit or block using a PC mouse/keyboard/controller.
I prefer "realistic"/good-looking combat over challenging combat.

RedHawke
11-13-2005, 05:15 AM
Sorry to break up everyone's ideas, but the biggest D20 game ever to be realised, the biggest epic, will have some different and fresh ideas. I'm talking about "Dungeon and Dragons Online", based on Eberron set. It will implement a mixed system. All the rules still apply, but now if you want your character to do something (and your group to work togheter) you'll have to take a decision and do it yourself. Like blocking an attack, when blocking your shield defense still determines if you're succesful or not, but now your character will not block by default, so the bonus defense provided by your shield will apply only when you make effective use of it.
I think that the same system should be applied to all the others D20 games, not to make it more realistic, because it will never be realistic, but to make it more dinamyc and interactive, just my opinion, but the system is suffering changes.
Sorry to burst your bubble there Soulforged, but this game you are referring to "Dungeon and Dragons Online" isn't a "pure" SP RPG or D20 game, it is a hybrid system made for MMORPG PvP online play with an increased twitch factor that is undesirable for most in a SP RPG.

So that won't work... and wouldn't be a KOTOR game anyway... while a future SW RPG might integrate these features, I don't see it happening as it would take away from the D&D MMORPG by doing so. ;)

Aurora Merlow
11-13-2005, 08:12 AM
it doesn't need to be changed. I don't mind it being enhanced to be a little more realistic. I haven't had any problems with the first two so why would it need tampering. As the old saying goes 'if its not broken don't fix it.'

Soulforged
11-13-2005, 07:52 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble there Soulforged, but this game you are referring to "Dungeon and Dragons Online" isn't a "pure" SP RPG or D20 game, it is a hybrid system made for MMORPG PvP online play with an increased twitch factor that is undesirable for most in a SP RPG.Yes I know that. But I must tell you this: the same thing happened when Baldur's Gate came out (ie old users complaining), a bad critic to the system of real time playing. With the time all users have adapted themselves to this system. The same thing might happen again, and to be honest with you I'll like to see it, at least to be a little more interactive. Just think for a moment, if you're improving your character to be more skillful in combat, because that's the major part of the game, it will be great to at least have a more interactive system, apart of being more inclusive for others to join in the fight. Now I don't agree with a change of the rules, but I don't agree either with this kind of "throw your character in, and let him do the work". The only way in wich I may be able to accept it as a complete adventure, will be the case where the major part will involve character development aside of fighting. But that's no going to happen: 1st- because the industry of Star Wars Games is tending to the children demand, not to a more adult one (thus the simplicity of the plot, and the hack'n slash feeling that at least I had with both Kotor Games, not so with Baldur's Gate), 2nd- because it seems that it's better to throw a game to the market quickly, than to really develop it, and I'm not talking about bugs, I'm talking about plot, integration of rules, interaction system, variety of items and characters (and worlds) and diversity of customization. All this elements are shining for their ausence right now.
So that won't work... and wouldn't be a KOTOR game anyway... while a future SW RPG might integrate these features, I don't see it happening as it would take away from the D&D MMORPG by doing so. ;)Oh I don't see it happening either (see post above), but at least I see a change in the MMORPG world based on the same set of rules.

IndianaSolo
11-13-2005, 09:43 PM
I, and I think you will find many others, do not want any twitch based combat systems in the KOTOR series.

Agreed.

I don't care how people try to justify turning into a twitch game, I don't like it as a twitch game.

RedHawke
11-14-2005, 02:30 AM
the same thing happened when Baldur's Gate came out (ie old users complaining), a bad critic to the system of real time playing. With the time all users have adapted themselves to this system. The same thing might happen again, and to be honest with you I'll like to see it, at least to be a little more interactive.
As you can tell I am with the group that thinks the system is fine as it is. I, and many others, have no problems with the way things are presented. Adding any sort of reflex based features for the game is a negative. Believe it or not, some people who play these KOTOR games cannot even beat the Turret Mini-Game, these people would be left in the proverbial dust with the addition of 'twitch combat' features. :)

Manny C
11-14-2005, 03:06 AM
i, like pretty much all my friends who've played it really dont like the combat system. It's too boring and samey for such an important part of the game.

darth_yanstrol
11-14-2005, 09:35 AM
I think it would be cool if combat in Kotor 3 was kind of like the combat style of Star Wars Episode 3: The Video Game. If it were like that, you would fight as a Jedi waaaayyyy better, you could actually jump behind opponents and gut them, engage in the sickest light saber battles and fight pretty similar to Yoda, and Anakin Skywalker.

IndianaSolo
11-14-2005, 03:41 PM
I think it would be cool if combat in Kotor 3 was kind of like the combat style of Star Wars Episode 3: The Video Game. If it were like that, you would fight as a Jedi waaaayyyy better, you could actually jump behind opponents and gut them, engage in the sickest light saber battles and fight pretty similar to Yoda, and Anakin Skywalker.

That's not how RPG combat works, though. It's not about "simulating actual lightsaber combat", it's about your character's stats versus his opponent's stats by invisible dice rolls.

To change the combat would be to change what KOTOR is about. KOTOR is NOT a twitch game. People who insist it needs to be changed to one should just stick to action games since RPGs obviously don't appeal to you if you're going to complain about something that is synonimous with RPGs.

Vladimir-Vlada
11-14-2005, 03:50 PM
Believe it or not, some people who play these KOTOR games cannot even beat the Turret Mini-Game,
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha; Can't even beat the Turret Mini-Game; Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.

Soulforged
11-14-2005, 06:12 PM
As you can tell I am with the group that thinks the system is fine as it is. I, and many others, have no problems with the way things are presented. Adding any sort of reflex based features for the game is a negative. Believe it or not, some people who play these KOTOR games cannot even beat the Turret Mini-Game, these people would be left in the proverbial dust with the addition of 'twitch combat' features. :)Fair enough Hawke, I'll keep on "revolutionary mod". :) Though you misunderstood me, I don't want to change anything of the rules, just maybe add a little more animations to make it less repetitive. It would not be really a reaction system, when you play this game usually you pause it and plan your actions (of course like this game is so easy it's really unnecessary, but again, with BG I had to do that), the same will be with the system that I'm planning (well the system already exists it only has to be implemented), is not a reactionary system, is the same but more interactive, more planning, and more thinking from the user's part.

Hallucination
11-14-2005, 07:07 PM
i, like pretty much all my friends who've played it really dont like the combat system. It's too boring and samey for such an important part of the game.
So instead of going and playing JK you come here to say that you want to ruin other peoples fun?

RedHawke
11-15-2005, 12:48 AM
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha; Can't even beat the Turret Mini-Game; Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
I don't think that's funny in the least Vlad, it is actually quite sad! :(

This was a big issue, and you should have heard the praises for Darth333 and her Easy Turret Mini-Game mod. ;)

+10 DS points for Vlad! :vadar:

:xp:

Though you misunderstood me, I don't want to change anything of the rules, just maybe add a little more animations to make it less repetitive. It would not be really a reaction system, when you play this game usually you pause it and plan your actions (of course like this game is so easy it's really unnecessary, but again, with BG I had to do that), the same will be with the system that I'm planning (well the system already exists it only has to be implemented), is not a reactionary system, is the same but more interactive, more planning, and more thinking from the user's part.
While that's cool and all, I would much rather have the other parts of the game worked on.

How about having the story be engrossing and fully fleshed out, leave nothing cut out, and have the effects of your DS or LS decisions be seen by you in the game.

Example: Onderon in TSL, if you sided with the DS faction (Vaklu), or the LS faction (Talia), when you returned to the Onderon afterward you would be treated by a unique cinematic, and see the effects of what you have done. With DS the city of Iziz would have been a depressed place with much suffering, while LS the city would be cheerful and rejoicing.

Also I would rather the features they already began to implement be fully fleshed out, like the Influence system, when you convert a LS NPC to the DS their responses would change to evil ones, or the opposite with DS NPC's converting to the LS. I would rather have engrossing storylines, humor, and fully fleshed out NPC's with side-quests, and goals so as to actually make me have an attachment to them. Also they need to work on the random item drops. These are the types of features I want to see improved with the game, to heck with the combat! :)

The Grey Ranger
11-15-2005, 01:56 AM
I have to agree with Redhawke. This kind of game is about the story. The graphics don't have to be the very latest. The story needs to be really solid. That is what really makes a great CRPG.

Manny C
11-15-2005, 02:26 AM
So instead of going and playing JK you come here to say that you want to ruin other peoples fun?


Did i say ruin the game? i really dont remember saying that. Combat, especially lightsaber combat is an integral part of who jedi knights are, what i want is something more than "click.....click......click...", its uninspired and gets really tiresome.

It doesnt have to be twitch combat, but who says just because a game is an RPG game it has to have non-existant combat? Look at Jade Empire: fantastic story, great graphics, also INSPIRED, rpg skill dependant combat, but there's more to it than just clicking from a variety of slightly varied attacks that look exactly the same every time.

Yes, these games are about story, but the truly great games are those that can have greatness in all aspects of the game. Deus Ex, for example, is an RPG game, the focus is on story, and it has a brilliant story, but the combat is dependant on your skill levels, you dont have to be great at First Person Shooters to enjoy the complex, inspired storyline and great characters and immersive atmosphere.

by NO means am i saying this game should be like jedi knight, jedi knight is terrible, the gameplay (ironically) doesnt capture jedi combat well at all. At least, i dont remember luke and vader running around like headless chooks swinging their lightsabers frantically hoping they might hit something.

Engma48
11-19-2005, 04:04 PM
the kotor series is an rpg based game.....play the star wars live action rpg game and it incorporates the D20 system into, plus the kotor series has already been made with the D20 system so to change now, it would just be like making a whole different star wars game.

Hallucination
11-19-2005, 05:40 PM
@Manny C: You don't have to change the game to an FPS to ruin peoples fun, you just have to take out the part that people have fun on.

Manny C
11-19-2005, 07:51 PM
well ur right hallucination, but from what people are saying, that's the story and the characters, not the combat system. The combat system is tedious, i know plenty of people who feel the same way, i know people who've given up on the game because of the combat system. You can improve the combat system to make it more interactive without even touching the story. Also i never said make it FPS, FPS is too far away from the current system and it wouldnt work changing it that much. What im saying is make it something like Jade Empire, in which you have far more control over the combat but it still hinges for the most part on your skill levels.

Engma48
11-19-2005, 07:58 PM
how would jade empire be a D20 system? i cant see that, because all i did in jade empire was jump over people and attack them from behind.

Hallucination
11-19-2005, 10:35 PM
@Manny C: But think about the people who like the D20 system.

RedHawke
11-20-2005, 02:23 AM
but from what people are saying, that's the story and the characters, not the combat system. The combat system is tedious, i know plenty of people who feel the same way, i know people who've given up on the game because of the combat system.
Tedious? I think not! The "classic" RPG's that many of us know and love would thusly drive you and your 'freinds' crazy then, becuse combat is only a means to an end in all of them, and combat is nothing more than numbers on the screen in some of those very "classics". Even the newer NWN, which KOTOR is based on, looks far more primitive compared to KOTOR. In all actuality KOTOR has spoiled the RPG world rotten, and any people who think differently about that are much akin to the character Oliver Twist asking for "more?" when we should all just be thankful for what we got.

Sorry to differ with your appraisal, but the combat system in KOTOR and TSL is one of the best that a 'pure' RPG has ever presented...

Lastly if the "tedious" combat made someone quit the game, then I submit to you that RPG's are not their cup of tea, and they should move on to a game more suited to their tastes.

You can improve the combat system to make it more interactive without even touching the story.
Combat, while part of the expirience, is not the major focus of an RPG... since the story, it's NPC's, and our choices and influence on the game world is the main focus, the game developers would be better served to spend their energies on those aspects.

Combat is used to futher the story, and grant the party some expirience along the way... also to find loot. ;)

What im saying is make it something like Jade Empire, in which you have far more control over the combat but it still hinges for the most part on your skill levels.
Nope, Jade Empire is a Martial Arts RPG, and while it is entertaining, it's 'twitch' factor due to it's handling of combat limits it's playability by 'pure' RPG fans... and all those who cannot handle "twitch" games, especially for long sessions. I can play KOTOR for upwards of 12 hours straight, but with Jade Empire I hit my limit at around 4 hours, this is due to the 'twitch' combat factor.

It is clear to me Manny C that you have a love of 'twitch' style games, and since you liked KOTOR you want to add that element you love to the game to make it 'perfect' in your eyes, I can respect that... just you do have to adknowledge that there are others don't like those kinds of additions.

Unfortunately, though all this is a moot discussion, being KOTOR is a D20 game, it is bound by the D20 rules, and thusly classifies as a 'pure' RPG, so you will not get your wish. We likely will get some new animations/eye-candy, but the combat will remain the same or similar "tedious" Turn-Based Combat system that we have played in KOTOR and TSL.

how would jade empire be a D20 system? i cant see that, because all i did in jade empire was jump over people and attack them from behind.
Exactly, it is a totally different system and game... what works with one game will not work with all games. :)

Manny C
11-20-2005, 04:19 AM
You pose a good argument RedHawke, but I think the difference of opinion stems from a confliction in our tastes in games. There is clearly a fanbase who, insane as i think it is, have grown accustomed to no more involvement in combat than a few possible actions which have the same animation over and over and over....but i digress.

My love of kotor, and rpg's in general has stemmed from the dwindling popularity of adventure games, and a subsequent shift into the closest thing still in fashion, so ive never been one for mind numbing tedium.

My opinion is that the game would be better served by being more all-rounded and making the combat more interesting and interactive, giving combat more depth as it should be in a game about jedi, instead of restricting it to the same, boring process over and over just to keep the unflexible RPG veterans happy. Games should be EVOLVING, ever improving and becoming enjoyable in ALL aspects, instead of restricting the game and its fan base in order to appease a small portion of the consumers.

RedHawke
11-20-2005, 06:13 AM
You pose a good argument RedHawke, but I think the difference of opinion stems from a confliction in our tastes in games. There is clearly a fanbase who, insane as i think it is, have grown accustomed to no more involvement in combat than a few possible actions which have the same animation over and over and over....but i digress.

My love of kotor, and rpg's in general has stemmed from the dwindling popularity of adventure games, and a subsequent shift into the closest thing still in fashion, so ive never been one for mind numbing tedium.

My opinion is that the game would be better served by being more all-rounded and making the combat more interesting and interactive, giving combat more depth as it should be in a game about jedi, instead of restricting it to the same, boring process over and over just to keep the unflexible RPG veterans happy. Games should be EVOLVING, ever improving and becoming enjoyable in ALL aspects, instead of restricting the game and its fan base in order to appease a small portion of the consumers.
I appreciate your feelings on this matter, but the best you can hope for in KOTOR III would be that they could add additional animations to spice up the combat, but it will remain the same slow "select the attack from the menu" turn-based system we have now. That is because KOTOR is a correct depiction of the PnP D20 system.

'Pure' RPG's. like D20 KOTOR, are not really meant to be enjoyable in your "ALL aspects" either, they are, at their core, cerebral tests, not tests of dexterity and adrenaline, and you are talking about adding just that.

Lastly, the so called "unflexible RPG veterans" are not a "a small portion of the consumers" as you seem to think, you seem to underestimate just who these games are made for, and what type of people they cater to.

Look above in this threads posts, and browse this section of the forums, you will eventually see that you are definately in the minority on this issue.

I, and I think you will find many others, do not want any twitch based combat systems in the KOTOR series.
;)

SITHSLAYER133
11-20-2005, 06:33 AM
the combat in kotor is unique im sick of games that are essentialy clones of other games

lukeiamyourdad
11-20-2005, 04:45 PM
Lastly, the so called "unflexible RPG veterans" are not a "a small portion of the consumers" as you seem to think, you seem to underestimate just who these games are made for, and what type of people they cater to.


I fully agree with this statement.
There is an evolution of the genre, but evolution does not mean changing everything.
Of all the actual RPGs, KotOR has one of the best combat system.

Look at some Japanese RPGs, mainly the Final Fantasy serie. Stand at point x, move towards enemy, attack, return to point x.
It's even more horrendous then KotOR, yet there's less whining about it. Why? Great story and characters, just like KotOR.

It's like some heretics who dare say that Civ should be made into an RTS. The serie of Civilization games are management games so combat isn't the main focus, just like real RPGs.

Or even better, Rainbow Six doesn't have enough fast-paced action. It's not supposed to have fast-paced action.

Manny C
11-20-2005, 08:52 PM
the best you can hope for in KOTOR III would be that they could add additional animations to spice up the combat, but it will remain the same slow "select the attack from the menu" turn-based system we have now. That is because KOTOR is a correct depiction of the PnP D20 system.

I would settle for this. Having far more animations, different animations for different lightsaber forms, more interesting attacks, stuff like that i would be perfectly happy with. Truth is i dont mind the combat system that much, ive gotten used to it, but i would prefer more diversity, diversity that feeds into the game as your character becomes more skilled and faces more skilled opponants so that everything isnt seen and done in the first 10 hours of the game.



Lastly, the so called "unflexible RPG veterans" are not a "a small portion of the consumers" as you seem to think, you seem to underestimate just who these games are made for, and what type of people they cater to.

Look above in this threads posts, and browse this section of the forums, you will eventually see that you are definately in the minority on this issue.


;)
in a forum like this, of course im in the minority, but i think ull find kotor has a much wider audience than you think, that's how its been so successful, and the majority of the gaming community nowadays is the more casual gamer who plays games for the fun of it, and wont venture onto forums like this.
Those sorts of players are the sorts who get bored with the combat and will not bother anymore, and they really do take up the majority of gaming consumers nowadays.

Although im not gonna fuss and complain if they dont change the combat system, the games are too bloody awesome to not play them on account of a mildly boring combat system, i just think the game would benefit from a more interactive system, as it wouldnt affect the story or anything negatively, and it would draw in more customers.

lukeiamyourdad
11-20-2005, 10:35 PM
Those sorts of players are the sorts who get bored with the combat and will not bother anymore, and they really do take up the majority of gaming consumers nowadays.


If this is true, how come both games were financial successes?
After KotOR 1, people who would get into the sequel were mostly players of the first game, at least, that's what a sequel usually attracts, then they knew what was waiting, the same old D20 system.

Another combat system will affect the game. It's a definite negative for pretty much everyone.
What I think you refer to as "casual gamer", is the generation of FPS players, the more "action" oriented gamers. They're not every single gamer. The Sims, a franchise who has basically no "action", is among the most succesful.
Again, Final Fantasy, who has a horrible combat system, is wildly popular and having kept the same old turn based system they had years ago, with minor modifications is still a financial success.

You have to realize that the market is not composed of one type of gamer who needs "x" kind of gameplay. The gaming market is extremely vast and complicated and you cannot simplify it and say, if there's more action, it will sell better.
Certain games appeal to certain people.

My take on why some of these people were unhappy with the combat system is:

a) They don't know what an RPG is all about and assumed that it was like JK;

or

b) They bought the game because it had "Jedi" and "Star Wars" on the box.


We cannot qualify somebody as "the average gamer". What is the "average gamer"?
The guy who's not a hardcore gamer?
In Korea, it could be the RTS and MMORPG player. In the US, it could be the GTA player, in England, it could be the Pro-Evolution player.
Is there a genre representing the average gamer? No.
Is there a definition of average gamer, accepted by everyone? No.
Is he male?
What age group?

I think what your defintion is, it's someone who plays video games for fun, but doesn't know about mods, doesn't post on forums and usually owns a console.
What does that mean?
Nothing.

Does the "average gamer" play action games only?

There is no way you can accurately answer those questions.

Until then, you cannot pose a judgement on the whole gaming community and say:"If we make this type of game, we'll sell more." Simply because it is totally false. There are trends, I won't deny it, but it comes and goes. A few years ago, it was RTS, right now, FPS, in a few years, we'll see.

OptimalOptimus
11-20-2005, 10:43 PM
I Voted NO. I want the Computer to do the Combat moves.. its' liek watching a Fight in a moive.. Or it could be if the had More combat moves. & the battles lasted longer.

There needs to be combat Styles for each The PC & NPCs

combat moves for Each weapon
combat moves for each Jedi
Jumps, Flips, dodges , Blocks, Brute Force moves. Force Jumps

I want to see Better Force moves.. things that you can really tell what the force has changed ot help you.

Hallucination
11-20-2005, 11:26 PM
Another point for the D20 system: KOTOR is about travelling in a party. If you had it like Jade Empire, a real-time system, or JA, how are you going to control 3 people at once?

Manny C
11-21-2005, 12:40 AM
If this is true, how come both games were financial successes?
After KotOR 1, people who would get into the sequel were mostly players of the first game, at least, that's what a sequel usually attracts, then they knew what was waiting, the same old D20 system. .

Because they're such great games in all other aspects, the story and characters give the player motivation to continue playing, and this is the continued reason for their success. I can assure you, gamers do NOT play kotor for its combat.


Another combat system will affect the game. It's a definite negative for pretty much everyone.
What I think you refer to as "casual gamer", is the generation of FPS players, the more "action" oriented gamers.


Ok i think there's something big that you've got mixed up here, the term "casual gamer" is not a genre specific term at all, in fact it really has nothing to do with genre, it has to do with the gaming habits of the consumer. the "casual gamer" plays a game for the entertainment value of the game, pure and simple. If a game is too complicated, too boring or too tedious, it's likely that the casual gamer wont be interested in it for very long. The "hardcore gamer" (hate that term, isnt appropriate to what its describing) is one who plays games more often, and has a greater appreciation for the details of a game, and thus tends to have more patience for a game's smaller failings in order to appreciate it as a whole.

From this perspective, the "casual gamer" will not see KOTOR's combat system as a "pure RPG" because they don't really know what that is, what they do know, is that the style of combat inhibits their control over the action and is more of the same thing over and over. Someone like myself, however, who is not necessarily an RPG veteran, but knows how it works, etc, can appreciate that the combat system goes with the genre and i will put up with it.

By NO MEANS am i saying the average gamer is immediately put off because it doesnt have a real time, action combat system, what I'm saying is that more gamer inclusive combat system in which the gamer takes a larger role in the action portrayed is more likely to make the combat enjoyable to the average player.



My take on why some of these people were unhappy with the combat system is:

a) They don't know what an RPG is all about and assumed that it was like JK;

or

b) They bought the game because it had "Jedi" and "Star Wars" on the box.


lol you tell me not to generalize, but that looks like a pretty big generalization to me. To some extent, it's true but it doesnt portray the whole picture. Yes, the person who doesnt like the combat system is probably likely to not fully appreciate the workings of an RPG, however, it's more the fact that the combat seperates the player from the action on screen. They don't like the fact that they have absolutely no control over whats happening save for a choice of what move to choose. This, and the fact that "jedi" does tend to relate to notions of combat skill, crazy lightsaber technique, and "starwars" tends to relate to awesome blaster battles and shootouts. It's also the fact that the combat will ALWAYS be the same, in a more realistic setting, combat changes depending on your environment, your weapon, your enemy, everything basically, no one fight is ever the same. These factors in an RPG merely alter the numbers upon which your chances of success are dependant.



Considering the "average gamer" point is a fairly small part of what i was saying earlier is kind of frustating. Just like a forum to so effectively go off in a tangent. :)

Manny C
11-21-2005, 12:44 AM
Another point for the D20 system: KOTOR is about travelling in a party. If you had it like Jade Empire, a real-time system, or JA, how are you going to control 3 people at once?

That's actually a really good point, I hadn't thought of that. The only real solution to something like that would be to make it like Xmen Legends, in which your other party members simply run like an AI and you control whichever one you want.

OptimalOptimus
11-21-2005, 01:05 AM
WEll think about this.. IF Jotor 3 is built on X-box 360 wich i'm sure it will be.. There could be up to 500 NPCs in teh game.. all with A.I.

SO a party size might to up to 4 NPCs & the enemies would be larger as well.

A.I. , longer battles, more NPCs, larger maps to explore.. Open universe Kotor,

Other ships in the game you could Buy .. Ebon Hawk & others .. OR jsut buy upgrades.

As for Combat i want to see Movie style camera moves. i want to be able to do 360 camera move while in combat,

lukeiamyourdad
11-21-2005, 01:20 AM
Because they're such great games in all other aspects, the story and characters give the player motivation to continue playing, and this is the continued reason for their success. I can assure you, gamers do NOT play kotor for its combat.

Exactly, so what's the point in changing the system then?



Ok i think there's something big that you've got mixed up here, the term "casual gamer" is not a genre specific term at all, in fact it really has nothing to do with genre, it has to do with the gaming habits of the consumer. the "casual gamer" plays a game for the entertainment value of the game, pure and simple.

And "hardcore gamers" don't?
I never said it has anything with genre specifics, more that the term "casual gamer" engulfs a lot of gamers and you cannot equate them to button mashers. Again, The Sims is a popular success, yet has no "action".

If a game is too complicated, too boring or too tedious, it's likely that the casual gamer wont be interested in it for very long. The "hardcore gamer" (hate that term, isnt appropriate to what its describing) is one who plays games more often, and has a greater appreciation for the details of a game, and thus tends to have more patience for a game's smaller failings in order to appreciate it as a whole.

It goes for hardcore gamers too. We do take more attention to detail, but when a game is boring, it's boring. I don't see how you can equate "hardcore gamer" with boring games. That simply isn't true.

From this perspective, the "casual gamer" will not see KOTOR's combat system as a "pure RPG" because they don't really know what that is, what they do know, is that the style of combat inhibits their control over the action and is more of the same thing over and over. Someone like myself, however, who is not necessarily an RPG veteran, but knows how it works, etc, can appreciate that the combat system goes with the genre and i will put up with it.

You underestimate the "casual gamer". I know plenty of casual gamers who have played the Final Fantasy serie and enjoyed very much, even with the horrible combat system.

FF is a bigger success then KotOR and yet, still uses the same old combat system.
One does not need to be an RPG veteran or to know them to enjoy and RPG. Casual gamers are smarter then you make them sound like.
What you refer too specifically are the button mashers and more action oriented types of gamers. Nothing to do with your definition of "casual".

Also, I forgot to point out that KotOR attracts a LOT of female gamers, unlike other games. Look at the Battlefront, JK.net and Republic Commando forums. No females or only a very small number (2-3).
Here, on an RPG forum, we have a very large (compared to other places) female population.
From certain comments gathered from them, twitch gaming isn't what they're looking for in KotOR.
We can conclude that KotOR does seem more interesting for women, in general.

By NO MEANS am i saying the average gamer is immediately put off because it doesnt have a real time, action combat system, what I'm saying is that more gamer inclusive combat system in which the gamer takes a larger role in the action portrayed is more likely to make the combat enjoyable to the average player.

I repeat again, Final Fantasy is a popular success with a much worse combat system.
It doesn't have to be "full control" for people to enjoy. This has been proven with many popular serie.
Like I say, you're putting the "average gamer" in a single basket, the one labelled "we like action-oriented" games.



lol you tell me not to generalize, but that looks like a pretty big generalization to me. To some extent, it's true but it doesnt portray the whole picture. Yes, the person who doesnt like the combat system is probably likely to not fully appreciate the workings of an RPG, however, it's more the fact that the combat seperates the player from the action on screen. They don't like the fact that they have absolutely no control over whats happening save for a choice of what move to choose.

Then it's not their cup of tea obviously. Every RPG is about choosing what your move should be.

This, and the fact that "jedi" does tend to relate to notions of combat skill, crazy lightsaber technique, and "starwars" tends to relate to awesome blaster battles and shootouts.

True, to some extent. Perhaps for kids who only saw the PT, it would relate to those notions only, but for OT lovers it would be different, but you do have a point.

It's also the fact that the combat will ALWAYS be the same, in a more realistic setting, combat changes depending on your environment, your weapon, your enemy, everything basically, no one fight is ever the same. These factors in an RPG merely alter the numbers upon which your chances of success are dependant.

Thus, why we need to improve upon the already existing system. This "realism" is also dependant on player skills. If the person is bad, he's just bad.
I know people who can't play an FPS because they really do suck.
RPGs are a good gateway for them and having the genre "evolve" into action won't be good for everyone.

Considering the "average gamer" point is a fairly small part of what i was saying earlier is kind of frustating. Just like a forum to so effectively go off in a tangent. :)

Actually, it is a bigger part then you think. A more "realistic" combat system is made for "average gamers" to enjoy, which is what your claim is all about.

RedHawke
11-21-2005, 02:04 AM
^^^^
I have to agree with LIAYD here Manny C!

i just think the game would benefit from a more interactive system, as it wouldnt affect the story or anything negatively, and it would draw in more customers.
This view likely stems from a misunderstanding on your part... while yes, to do as you are implying would draw in a few new players, but it would alienate many more in your core audience than you would possibly bring in... not a good choice with any business venture.

From this perspective, the "casual gamer" will not see KOTOR's combat system as a "pure RPG" because they don't really know what that is, what they do know, is that the style of combat inhibits their control over the action and is more of the same thing over and over. Someone like myself, however, who is not necessarily an RPG veteran, but knows how it works, etc, can appreciate that the combat system goes with the genre and i will put up with it.
Now we are getting somewhere...

Let me explain to you what 'pure' RPG means, and a little about them; (And what new RPG players like yourself can expect from them) It basically has to do with any RPG made that is based off of a Paper and Pencil Role Playing System, KOTOR is based off of Wizards of the Coast D20 system. And is a damn fine reproduction of that system, IMHO. This means that the game has certain built-in restrictions beforehand, restrictions of the system itself, and so it will have issues with some players, like yourself, because the PnP systems are not meant to give fluid or interactive combat, they are typically meant for slowly plotting moves out with lead or pewter miniatures on either a hex or square grid. Movement during combat in most all RPG systems is either to close with an enemy to engage, or to run away, it is no matter though because any movement after combat is initiated incurrs severe penalties to your character, usually loss of inititive or attack penalties. The game system itself is what dictates the look of the combat, and while you only 'see' very little in the way of ducking/blocking and such, behind the scenes there is a lot of die rolls and numbers flowing. While new animations can help this somewhat, it will still be basically the same.

This is the way 'pure' RPG's work, they are always less visually stunning compared to say a FPS, or Hybrid RPG's, and as I have previously stated KOTOR broke a lot of ground in giving a 'pure' RPG some real visual enhancements.

What I am trying to say is when you see a label like D20 or D&D on a RPG game, you should then expect to have a slower paced "cerebral" game... I only bought KOTOR because of the D20 label, telling me that it isn't a "twitch" game, it is a game you play to relax, have some munchies, and a good relaxing time cursing and reloading your save game because you just got a bunch of wrong alignment points in a dialogue. :D

By NO MEANS am i saying the average gamer is immediately put off because it doesnt have a real time, action combat system, what I'm saying is that more gamer inclusive combat system in which the gamer takes a larger role in the action portrayed is more likely to make the combat enjoyable to the average player.
Sorry, but these kinds of 'pure' RPG's cater to a broad pre-existing RPG audience, and while they do try to appeal to as many players as they can, the additions you are talking about would alienate a large part of the core RPG audience simply to placate a very small 'new player' minority.

I find your usage of "average player" to be inappropriate, like you attribute "people who like action games" as a majority, in this assumption you are sadly mistaken. But LIAYD has stated roughly what I would on that, so I will leave that one alone.

In the end your "action based" suggestions, while they are quite alright, they are simply out of place in 'pure' RPG's that have their own rules to follow. ;)

Manny C
11-21-2005, 02:38 AM
Exactly, so what's the point in changing the system then?

Because changing the combat system isnt touching the things that are great about kotor, the things i mentioned are related to the characters, the world, the story, NOT the combat.



"casual gamer" engulfs a lot of gamers and you cannot equate them to button mashers.

never did.


It goes for hardcore gamers too. We do take more attention to detail, but when a game is boring, it's boring. I don't see how you can equate "hardcore gamer" with boring games. That simply isn't true.


again, i never did, you're twisting my words. I said "hardcore gamers" have more patience for tedious aspects of a game because they have a greater appreciation of the better aspects and will endure frustration more than the casual gamer who will simply switch off the console and go do something else rather than put up with something frustrating.


You underestimate the "casual gamer". I know plenty of casual gamers who have played the Final Fantasy serie and enjoyed very much, even with the horrible combat system.


That's because of Final fantasy's great story and characters, like the kotor series. Have i missed something? i dont really remember saying casual gamers wont play a game because of a poor combat system, i remember saying the game will appeal more to the average gamer if it had a realistic, more interactive combat system, and that some people give up on it because they get sick of the combat system, but where are you drawing these generalizations from?



One does not need to be an RPG veteran or to know them to enjoy and RPG. Casual gamers are smarter then you make them sound like.
What you refer too specifically are the button mashers and more action oriented types of gamers. Nothing to do with your definition of "casual".


quote me where i say "button mashers" please. I said that the pure RPG combat system seperates the player from the action, and that it is tedious, which requires patience, which, in the case of computer games, the "casual gamer" generally has less of than the hardcore gamer.


Also, I forgot to point out that KotOR attracts a LOT of female gamers, unlike other games. Look at the Battlefront, JK.net and Republic Commando forums. No females or only a very small number (2-3).
Here, on an RPG forum, we have a very large (compared to other places) female population.
From certain comments gathered from them, twitch gaming isn't what they're looking for in KotOR.
We can conclude that KotOR does seem more interesting for women, in general.

interesting observation mate, one i would hypothesise is because it's more cerebral and doesnt necessarily have the male-centred appeal of a testosterone-appeasing violent shooter. However i dont see the relevance.



I repeat again, Final Fantasy is a popular success with a much worse combat system.
It doesn't have to be "full control" for people to enjoy.

I repeat yet again, games can still be enjoyable without a good combat system, they're just more fun when they do.


Like I say, you're putting the "average gamer" in a single basket, the one labelled "we like action-oriented" games.





Then it's not their cup of tea obviously. Every RPG is about choosing what your move should be.


no im not! If you look over every one of my posts, not once did i say that it hadnt to be an action game style interface. All ive said is that the current combat system is TEDIOUS and samey, I've suggested more control over the combat this DOESNT mean "it should be first person shooter" or "hack and slash" or "button masher", what it DOES mean is that the player should be given exactly what it states, MORE CONTROL OVER THE COMBAT, ie, more than 3 or 4 moves to choose from, more diversity in lightsaber forms, some sort of input into defence like "attempt counterattack" or something like that.


Actually, it is a bigger part then you think. A more "realistic" combat system is made for "average gamers" to enjoy, which is what your claim is all about.

No, my claim is that making the combat system more realistic makes the game
A: more accessible because the player is more involved in the game
B: allows for more diversity, thus breaking the tediousness of the same animations over and over and over again, making things more interesting (THIS is where the average gamer remark - yes, it was actually a simple remark to begin with - is in context. The "casual gamer" would be drawn in by the fact that the combat ISNT TEDIOUS)
C: Reduces frustration, the player has more control over the events, so they dont have to just sit back and watch their people get butchered because they've got bad stats, they actually have some control over whats happening. And i know ur about to say "what about the PLAYERS who suck" thats what we have different difficulty levels for.

Manny C
11-21-2005, 02:45 AM
^^^^

I find your usage of "average player" to be inappropriate, like you attribute "people who like action games" as a majority, in this assumption you are sadly mistaken. But LIAYD has stated roughly what I would on that, so I will leave that one alone.


What the hell! i never said the majority of gamers are action gamers, lukeiamyourdad SAID i said that but i didnt. I said a large portion of gamers are the "casual gamer" who have less patience for tediousness, i dont know what that has to do with action games.

RedHawke
11-21-2005, 03:38 AM
What the hell! i never said the majority of gamers are action gamers, lukeiamyourdad SAID i said that but i didnt. I said a large portion of gamers are the "casual gamer" who have less patience for tediousness, i dont know what that has to do with action games.
Sorry, but you did indeed say just what I said your statement... I'll repost it and my reasoning here to clairify things...

By NO MEANS am i saying the average gamer is immediately put off because it doesnt have a real time, action combat system, what I'm saying is that more gamer inclusive combat system in which the gamer takes a larger role in the action portrayed is more likely to make the combat enjoyable to the average player.
I am saying your usage of "average player" in this part of your statement is inapproriate. RPG's are made for the widest audience of most all types of computer games, so if any game could be considered to cater to an "average player" it would be an RPG.

This statement "what I'm saying is that a more gamer inclusive combat system in which the gamer takes a larger role in the action portrayed is more likely to make the combat enjoyable to the average player" does indeed lead one to come to the conclusion that I did, because you are saying that the "average player" average being a majority, that the majority of players are action style game players, because the average player will want these "gamer inclusive combat" based features, I read that as action. This is how I took your statement, hence my reasoning.

I hope this explains what I meant. ;)

Manny C
11-21-2005, 03:43 AM
lol ok fair enough, but, i did say in my last post:



If you look over every one of my posts, not once did i say that it hadnt to be an action game style interface. All ive said is that the current combat system is TEDIOUS and samey, I've suggested more control over the combat this DOESNT mean "it should be first person shooter" or "hack and slash" or "button masher", what it DOES mean is that the player should be given exactly what it states, MORE CONTROL OVER THE COMBAT, ie, more than 3 or 4 moves to choose from, more diversity in lightsaber forms, some sort of input into defence like "attempt counterattack" or something like that.

RedHawke
11-21-2005, 03:48 AM
^^^^
:D

But to answer your statement please re-read my Post #49, specifically the middle part explaining 'pure' RPG's... that is why you cannot have those features, by the games very design.

Like I said before, some new combat animations are likely, but nothing like you are asking for, it just isn't allowed in the D20 rules... sorry.

Manny C
11-21-2005, 04:06 AM
yeah i know about how RPG's work, i play Vampire the Masquerade which uses a similar system.

I think it could easily be improved using the D-20 system. Defence for example, they could include counterattacks,

you could include chain attacks, acrobatics (leap out of battle, like an opposite of the force jump), grapples, saber locks, disarms/weapon destroy (should be able to destroy the other person's sword with a saber, ie, have non cortosis weave weapons, as cortosis weave wouldnt actually be used in every single melee weapon like it is in the previous kotor games), throws, maybe even more intereseting death animations, like saber dismemberment or something similar, all sorts of things like that could work in the D20 system. In fact, saber locks is a good example of where a D20 system would be better than the typical action game button mash.

RedHawke
11-21-2005, 05:26 AM
^^^^
Those features you state are not part of D20 rules proper, so they cannot be used. It is actually out of the scope of the D20 rules to do most of those things you state. There might be a couple of exceptions in your list, but the penalties incurred wouldn't be worth it to use them.

See, the rules would have to be made up beforehand and balanced by WotC, they are the ones who have the final say in anything released with the D20 label, and many of the things you mentioned are not capable of being done in the D20 system, remember D20 is being hyped as an all-in-one game system, so additions at this time to the basic core rules are not going to happen, for reasons of balance.

As far as your misgivings about Cortosis weapons, this was needed as the NWN D20 system is a Fantasy based system, as such it doesn't allow for lightsabers, or damaging an opponents weapon. There are no rules for this. So an excuse was needed to explain why people with melee weapons could go toe-to-toe with a saber wielding opponent.

Also about dismemberment, again the majority of us don't want it, there are threads asking about it around here, also note that if the game included dismemberment it would have an appropriate more mature rating. KOTOR and TSL are Teen rated games, so this means KOTOR III will be too, so this is also not going to happen.

EDIT: While I do understand what you want to accomplish, it is just out of the scope of this type of game to give you these things.

EDIT II: Let's go over them a little more carefully...

Counterattacks & Chain Attacks & Grapples & Saber Locks... do not exist within the D20 system, and it cannot be modified to include these types of things either, in the D20 system combat is 'I attack your defense, then you attack mine'... nothing more can be done, as it is basically D&D.

Acrobatics... Your idea of "(leap out of battle, like an opposite of the force jump)", your leaving combat gives your opponent an attack of opportunity against your base defense (No Dex Bonus), basically a free easy attack on you. It is do-able yes, but... Why? Oh why would you ever want to do such a thing?

Disarms/Weapon Destroy... I already addressed the impossibility of the Weapon Destroy issue, Disarms on the other hand could be implemented, but it is not a standard rule of D20, it is a "House Rule" if I'm not mistaken, and is only limited to special Classes or attack forms. This one is do-able, but should be an optional rule at best... Why? Not everyone likes Disarm Rules.

More Death Animations... this is just something in an additional feature that seems too bloodthirsty to most people. What they have currently is rather tasteful, believe me much testing went into this.

Saber Dismemberment... I also already went into this before, but simply put the games rating is Teen, to add this would raise that rating, and LA has stated they want these games to be a Teen rating, so this bloodthirsty feature, thankfully will not happen either.

lukeiamyourdad
11-21-2005, 11:46 AM
Because changing the combat system isnt touching the things that are great about kotor, the things i mentioned are related to the characters, the world, the story, NOT the combat.

Though it might not change them directly, the overall experience will see it itself changed.


again, i never did, you're twisting my words. I said "hardcore gamers" have more patience for tedious aspects of a game because they have a greater appreciation of the better aspects and will endure frustration more than the casual gamer who will simply switch off the console and go do something else rather than put up with something frustrating.

Do they?

I'm not twisting your words. Look at this post:

If a game is too complicated, too boring or too tedious, it's likely that the casual gamer wont be interested in it for very long. The "hardcore gamer" (hate that term, isnt appropriate to what its describing) is one who plays games more often, and has a greater appreciation for the details of a game, and thus tends to have more patience for a game's smaller failings in order to appreciate it as a whole.

I think you lower the casual gamer again. Casual gamers have different attitudes. It's not because he's "casual" that he's going to switch off the console at the first sign of difficulty.

That's because of Final fantasy's great story and characters, like the kotor series. Have i missed something? i dont really remember saying casual gamers wont play a game because of a poor combat system, i remember saying the game will appeal more to the average gamer if it had a realistic, more interactive combat system, and that some people give up on it because they get sick of the combat system, but where are you drawing these generalizations from?

Generalizations? What generalization? I'm not saying that you claim that nobody would play the game because of its poor combat system, just that the statement that it will appear more to "casual" gamers simply isn't true.




quote me where i say "button mashers" please. I said that the pure RPG combat system seperates the player from the action, and that it is tedious, which requires patience, which, in the case of computer games, the "casual gamer" generally has less of than the hardcore gamer.

RedHawke answered it, but I'd like to add something.
I'd like to bring up the adventure game genre. It's a small niche market of games that require mostly patience and observation skill.
Does it mean there's only hardcore gamers? Absolutely not. It's a style that attracts one type of gamer, certainly not a "hardcore gamer style".

interesting observation mate, one i would hypothesise is because it's more cerebral and doesnt necessarily have the male-centred appeal of a testosterone-appeasing violent shooter. However i dont see the relevance.

Oh it does. If we lose appeal to some action minded players, we'll gain it in the women gamers community.



I repeat yet again, games can still be enjoyable without a good combat system, they're just more fun when they do.

Of course it is. Now, this becomes a matter of taste does it? Since you're definition of "good" and "fun", probably differs from other people and mines does too.


no im not! If you look over every one of my posts, not once did i say that it hadnt to be an action game style interface. All ive said is that the current combat system is TEDIOUS and samey, I've suggested more control over the combat this DOESNT mean "it should be first person shooter" or "hack and slash" or "button masher", what it DOES mean is that the player should be given exactly what it states, MORE CONTROL OVER THE COMBAT, ie, more than 3 or 4 moves to choose from, more diversity in lightsaber forms, some sort of input into defence like "attempt counterattack" or something like that.

Those are all improvements upon the existing system, but adds no to little realism.
TSL has already improved upon it, the next time, more can be done.
I'm more interested in your definition of "control". You claim more control, but you want the same system that basically makes you choose your moves. Now what is it?
In my mind, more control is actually controlling the lightsaber/blaster and with my mouse or controller, use it to hit my enemy who will take damage depending on where I hit him.


No, my claim is that making the combat system more realistic makes the game
A: more accessible because the player is more involved in the game
B: allows for more diversity, thus breaking the tediousness of the same animations over and over and over again, making things more interesting (THIS is where the average gamer remark - yes, it was actually a simple remark to begin with - is in context. The "casual gamer" would be drawn in by the fact that the combat ISNT TEDIOUS)
C: Reduces frustration, the player has more control over the events, so they dont have to just sit back and watch their people get butchered because they've got bad stats, they actually have some control over whats happening. And i know ur about to say "what about the PLAYERS who suck" thats what we have different difficulty levels for.

A) No, I don't think it will be more accessible, in general. It might be for a certain group of people.
B) Have you played TSL? There was a lot more then the same animation over and over and over again like in K1. We can improve upon that. As far as I know anyway, the combat wasn't as "tedious" as you claim.
C) I can't do **** on DDR at easy.
Anyway, what would be the point of a level system then? That's what every RPG has been about, from the hack-n-slash Diablo to NWN.
Bad stats you die man, that's what an RPG is all about.

rhinomatt
11-21-2005, 03:59 PM
theres too many fighting games the KOTOR saga is NOT about fighting skill!

SITHSLAYER133
11-21-2005, 04:05 PM
maybe new animations but no changing if i want free fighting lightsaber i will play jk3

Manny C
11-21-2005, 09:29 PM
Though it might not change them directly, the overall experience will see it itself changed.

This is true, but its a matter of opinion as to whether its for the better or worse. HOWEVER, it does not change the script, the characters, the locations or anything such as this which make KOTOR games great. The combat system cant take away these exulting traits.


Do they?


yes. Dont pose a rhetorical question unless you offer something to back up your intended side of the argument, it's bad rhetoric.


I think you lower the casual gamer again. Casual gamers have different attitudes. It's not because he's "casual" that he's going to switch off the console at the first sign of difficulty.


again, i never said they "switch off the console at the first sign of difficulty". If something is long winded, and a chore to play, then they are LESS LIKELY to endure it because their elasticity of enjoyment is much greater than the "hardcore" gamer.



I'd like to bring up the adventure game genre. It's a small niche market of games that require mostly patience and observation skill.
Does it mean there's only hardcore gamers? Absolutely not. It's a style that attracts one type of gamer, certainly not a "hardcore gamer style".


its interesting you should bring up the adventure games, and you have a good point, adventure gamers certainly arent "hardcore gamers", are usually more mature and don't necessarily play other types of games, however, i think its interesting to note the decline of adventure games, yes they are certainly still around but there's no denying that they've been on a downward slope over the past 10 years, and the crowd who play them nowadays tends to be a fairly specialist consumer group. "Monopolistic competition" if you will.



Oh it does. If we lose appeal to some action minded players, we'll gain it in the women gamers community.


gee, now there's a pretty baseless, generalized comment, and right after


Generalizations? What generalizations?




Of course it is. Now, this becomes a matter of taste does it? Since you're definition of "good" and "fun", probably differs from other people and mines does too.

definately 100% true, but here you're getting two seperate arguments mixed up. My opinions, and the opinions of a fair number of people i know who've played the kotor games (typically not genre specific people, these guys+girls play action games, adventure games, survival horror and a few RPGs) are that the combat is fairly tedious, and as a starwars fan, and a hell of a fan of lightsabers and jedi, I would like to see more control given to the player.



Those are all improvements upon the existing system, but adds no to little realism.

uh... im not completely sure but im gonna assume you meant "but adds little to realism", which is wrong. Simply by being given more options, you immediately have more CONTROL over your characters, thus meaning you have a greater range of choices of what you would do in that situation. Being given the choice to either attack, use a force power, use a grenade is less realistic than being given the choice to attack, retreat, prepare to counterattack the next enemy attack, throw the enemy, use a force power or use a grenade.
I hope that clarifies things for you.



I'm more interested in your definition of "control". You claim more control, but you want the same system that basically makes you choose your moves. Now what is it?
In my mind, more control is actually controlling the lightsaber/blaster and with my mouse or controller, use it to hit my enemy who will take damage depending on where I hit him.
.

Clearly you have misunderstood me from the beginning, so I'll explain it again.
KOTOR's combat currently gives the player a certain degree of control over the characters, by which i mean to say, you can choose what you want them to do to a certain extent. In my opinion, and relative to other games i have played, this is to a fairly small degree. I cannot attack two enemies at once with my lightsaber, I cannot effectively leap out of battle, i cannot use cover during a firefight, I cannot throw a grenade to a destination other than exactly where an enemy is standing. Based on these sorts of things, my opinion is that the control is fairly SMALL.

While your take on control is fair enough, that is in my opinion more like complete control. Naturally, as redhawke has make pretty clear, as well as hall, that wouldnt really work in a D20 game like kotor. I still think the D20 rules arent THAT inflexible, you could easily alter things to make room for extra moves and options.



A) No, I don't think it will be more accessible, in general. It might be for a certain group of people.
.

matter of opinion. To people unfamiliar with the workings of RPG's, it would most definately make it more accessible.


B) Have you played TSL? There was a lot more then the same animation over and over and over again like in K1. We can improve upon that. As far as I know anyway, the combat wasn't as "tedious" as you claim.


again thats a matter of opinion. The combat only changed when u learnt a new move, and there were only like 3 for melee and 3 for ranged. After that it was always the same. In my opinion, the same 3 moves throughout a 40 hour game is tedious.


Anyway, what would be the point of a level system then? That's what every RPG has been about, from the hack-n-slash Diablo to NWN.
Bad stats you die man, that's what an RPG is all about.

I dont like that i have no influence, combat should be more than that, it should be fun and detailed, as it should be in a game about jedi.


btw, whats DDR?

Eagle Racer
11-21-2005, 10:43 PM
As far as the battle engines goes, I would really like to be able to see a big lightsable battle like it the movies if you just sat and let the game go in a battle, without all the little pauses between "moves" or "turns". If you want time to give oders or whatever that what the pause botton is for. Other than that I would say leave it the way it is. For freedom of movement I'll go play Battlefront 2. Just my 2 cents worth. :)

Manny C
11-21-2005, 10:49 PM
i havent played battlefront 2, looks awesome tho. Whats the jedi control like?

Clone L68362
11-21-2005, 10:51 PM
Ya know guys, a simple explanation of why this would suck would be:

The whole point of an RPG is for you to choose the most logical abilities for your characters so they get more powerful. If combat were controlled by the player, stats, powers, and the meat of the game would be gone. It would require skill, instead of intelligence.

Maybe that's a better explanation. I dunno.

Manny C
11-21-2005, 11:24 PM
yeah it is, but there are plenty of hybrid RPG's that incorporate skills into the gameplay excellently and its still an rpg. Take deus ex and jade empire for example.

lukeiamyourdad
11-21-2005, 11:36 PM
This is true, but its a matter of opinion as to whether its for the better or worse. HOWEVER, it does not change the script, the characters, the locations or anything such as this which make KOTOR games great. The combat system cant take away these exulting traits.

True, to an extent, but again, it's all part of the overall experience.


yes. Dont pose a rhetorical question unless you offer something to back up your intended side of the argument, it's bad rhetoric.

I did, you just seemed to miss the rest of that part.

again, i never said they "switch off the console at the first sign of difficulty". If something is long winded, and a chore to play, then they are LESS LIKELY to endure it because their elasticity of enjoyment is much greater than the "hardcore" gamer.

I think this is a big generalization. I don't think hardcore gamers are going to endure anything tedious more then a casual gamer. The only people who actually do endure really atrocious games are game reviewers and that's because they have too.



its interesting you should bring up the adventure games, and you have a good point, adventure gamers certainly arent "hardcore gamers", are usually more mature and don't necessarily play other types of games, however, i think its interesting to note the decline of adventure games, yes they are certainly still around but there's no denying that they've been on a downward slope over the past 10 years, and the crowd who play them nowadays tends to be a fairly specialist consumer group. "Monopolistic competition" if you will.

So has the RTS been on the downward slope. Will it pick up in the future? who knows. RPGs, including those with "bad" combat system haven't been in any downward slope.



gee, now there's a pretty baseless, generalized comment, and right after

I thought the careful inclusion of the word "some" would avoid any generalization. I see I was wrong...




definately 100% true, but here you're getting two seperate arguments mixed up. My opinions, and the opinions of a fair number of people i know who've played the kotor games (typically not genre specific people, these guys+girls play action games, adventure games, survival horror and a few RPGs) are that the combat is fairly tedious, and as a starwars fan, and a hell of a fan of lightsabers and jedi, I would like to see more control given to the player.

And I'm pretty sure that "a fair number of people" means people you do know. More anecdotal evidence then actually having a serious survey on the matter. This isn't up for debate anyway.


uh... im not completely sure but im gonna assume you meant "but adds little to realism", which is wrong. Simply by being given more options, you immediately have more CONTROL over your characters, thus meaning you have a greater range of choices of what you would do in that situation. Being given the choice to either attack, use a force power, use a grenade is less realistic than being given the choice to attack, retreat, prepare to counterattack the next enemy attack, throw the enemy, use a force power or use a grenade.

I hope that clarifies things for you.


Clearly you have misunderstood me from the beginning, so I'll explain it again.
KOTOR's combat currently gives the player a certain degree of control over the characters, by which i mean to say, you can choose what you want them to do to a certain extent. In my opinion, and relative to other games i have played, this is to a fairly small degree. I cannot attack two enemies at once with my lightsaber, I cannot effectively leap out of battle, i cannot use cover during a firefight, I cannot throw a grenade to a destination other than exactly where an enemy is standing. Based on these sorts of things, my opinion is that the control is fairly SMALL.


But how does that make the more "action" hungry player feel that the game is less tedious? It's more options. I simply don't think that's how you can qualify that as more "control".



While your take on control is fair enough, that is in my opinion more like complete control. Naturally, as redhawke has make pretty clear, as well as hall, that wouldnt really work in a D20 game like kotor. I still think the D20 rules arent THAT inflexible, you could easily alter things to make room for extra moves and options.

Of course there's more then enough room and I'm all for that. However, I don't see how you and me are not on the same side of the fence. Your proposition won't change anything, just add more options. I don't think we can qualify it as more control.


matter of opinion. To people unfamiliar with the workings of RPG's, it would most definately make it more accessible.

Perhaps yes, perhaps not. Personally, I think it would make no difference.

again thats a matter of opinion. The combat only changed when u learnt a new move, and there were only like 3 for melee and 3 for ranged. After that it was always the same. In my opinion, the same 3 moves throughout a 40 hour game is tedious.

It's actually 4 moves, including the regular attack and there has been a lot of improvements in the department of animations. Thus, it made it less tedious since it wasn't the same flurry animation all the time.

I dont like that i have no influence, combat should be more than that, it should be fun and detailed, as it should be in a game about jedi.

See, this is the thing where I think you contradict yourself. You want more influence but no manual aiming or manual fighting, just more option, but more influence within the D20 system?
The influence you have, depends on what move you choose to use. That's what an RPG is about and according to your earlier explanation of what you wanted, nothing has changed and you'll have the same amount of influence, just more option.
Far from more control and influence.

btw, whats DDR?

Dance Dance Revolution.

Eagle Racer
11-22-2005, 12:49 AM
i havent played battlefront 2, looks awesome tho. Whats the jedi control like?

It's similar to JKA. Only thing is you only get 2 force powers per Jedi and they are not of your choosing. It's a lot of fun, but it's even more of a botton masher's paradise as a Jedi than it is as a normal soldier. Really cool atack animations and stuff, Yoda's espicially. Pretty neat getting to play as one of those Yeddy looking creaters on Hoth. Only complaint is that the entire AI for the enemy zooms in on you and only once they spot you on the feild of battle. Kind of annoying watching a group of them come running through a large group of ally soldiers to chase you around. Does add more challenge and can be funny when you and your allies mow them all down. Prolly should be back on toppic, if you want anymore info feel free to shoot me a PM or something... :)

Back on topic, I will say this, I do agree with the "purists" here about the fighting engine, but isn't this series suppose to be an RTS to some extent as well, not just an RPG? I would enjoy the chance to use my character like you can in Battlefront, but only in say a "Battle Arena" Situation, not during the normal game play. You put all that time into developing them, be nice to "really be in control" at some point... But that's a ton of extra coding to add and another can of worms and all that good stuff, so I understand not being able to do it.

RedHawke
11-22-2005, 01:07 AM
but isn't this series suppose to be an RTS to some extent as well, not just an RPG?
Nope, KOTOR/TSL are 'pure' RPG's, nothing more... Real Time Strategy is more of a Warcraft III or Starcraft thing. ;)

yeah it is, but there are plenty of hybrid RPG's that incorporate skills into the gameplay excellently and its still an rpg. Take deus ex and jade empire for example.
I thought I already explained about the differences between 'Hybrid' RPG's and 'Pure' RPG's... they are not even the same type of game.

Manny C
11-22-2005, 01:29 AM
True, to an extent, but again, it's all part of the overall experience.

how to any extent is it not true? combat and story/characters are seperate, combat, like what has clearly been stated is a minor part of the kotor games. Yes the overall experience would be effected, for good or bad hinges on the opinion of the player, but the fact remains that it really wouldnt effect the game significantly at all, i think it would make it better, you think it would make it worse.



I think this is a big generalization. I don't think hardcore gamers are going to endure anything tedious more then a casual gamer. The only people who actually do endure really atrocious games are game reviewers and that's because they have too.


of course the harcore gamer will, like i said earlier, the casual gamer may have no knowledge whatsoever of D20 or any of the goings on behind the scenes of KOTOR combat, they simply hire kotor off the shelves and play it. When it gets to a battle they're gonna say "what the hell is this, why cant i hide behind this wall while i shoot, this is stupid".

everyone's all pent up on keeping it a "pure RPG" so that people who are completely uncoordinated dont suck at it. But look at Fable, that's got real time combat and that's still almost completely dependant on your skills. Being quick and twitchy is all well and good but if you're guy is only doing like 4 damage to a guy with 200 hp you're not going to get very far.



I thought the careful inclusion of the word "some" would avoid any generalization. I see I was wrong...




And I'm pretty sure that "a fair number of people" means people you do know. More anecdotal evidence then actually having a serious survey on the matter. This isn't up for debate anyway.


Yeah man but do you? other than a clearly biased forum you can't honestly make an accurate guess at the actual number of people who'd like it or not.


But how does that make the more "action" hungry player feel that the game is less tedious? It's more options. I simply don't think that's how you can qualify that as more "control".


well the simple fact is that the more options you have, the better your control is over what the character does, i think that qualifies as more "control" quite easily.


Of course there's more then enough room and I'm all for that. However, I don't see how you and me are not on the same side of the fence. Your proposition won't change anything, just add more options. I don't think we can qualify it as more control.


my argument is that combat is too detached from the player, whatever means that is reduced i don't mind, all ive argued is that it wouldn't be a bad thing. (good even)


It's actually 4 moves, including the regular attack and there has been a lot of improvements in the department of animations. Thus, it made it less tedious since it wasn't the same flurry animation all the time.

yeah but thats kind of like chucking a drop of water at the fireplace to put it out,

4 moves instead of 3 for a 40 hour game
5 or 6 animations


See, this is the thing where I think you contradict yourself. You want more influence but no manual aiming or manual fighting, just more option, but more influence within the D20 system?
The influence you have, depends on what move you choose to use. That's what an RPG is about and according to your earlier explanation of what you wanted, nothing has changed and you'll have the same amount of influence, just more option.
Far from more control and influence.


what im saying isnt that specific, all i said was that there isnt enough control in the combat, there's plenty of ways to increase it. Like make it a real time 3rd person style like Fable or Jade Empire. or if you dont want to have to rely on your senses at all, then keep the D20 system but expand it.




Dance Dance Revolution.
I'd hardly compare the sort of real time action like fable in talking about to dance dance revolution

Emperor Devon
11-22-2005, 01:30 AM
Change the KOTOR combat system? What a great idea! I just thought of another one - let's all set ourselves on fire so we'll stay nice and warm!

Manny C
11-22-2005, 01:37 AM
lol how insightful

the battlefront jedi control sounds a bit crappy. JKA is the worst at controlling jedi i cant stand it.

Eagle Racer
11-22-2005, 09:57 AM
It's hard for me to compare. I've got JKA on X-Box and Battlefront 2 on PC... I do have JKO, but I haven't played with the lightsaber a whole lot on that one. Jedi are also limited to put them on a more even playing frield with the rest of the characters in game.

IndianaSolo
11-22-2005, 03:23 PM
I still chuckle everytime I read the two poll options and how the author was so leading in the way he phrased it.

I just can't make myself vote no because the description of the no vote isn't my reason for why I'd vote no.

Rediy
11-22-2005, 03:31 PM
KOTOR is a roleplaying series, not a FPS or Action series. The idea isn't to have fast action, twitch based combat, but to have involving story archs, and characters. If KOTOR3 is twitch based, I simply will not buy it. The D20 system is based off of dice rolls, and stats. You would completely undermine that system by changing it to a more point and click setup.

Go play Neverwinter Nights, think it should have a fast action, clickfest style fighting where you aim your characters attacks? No, that isn't how these games are built.

Infact, I could see KOTOR playing out as a turned based game much better than any FPS styled game. Go play the Jedi Knight series, if you want a FPS experience.

Manny C
11-22-2005, 06:35 PM
KOTOR is a roleplaying series, not a FPS or Action series. The idea isn't to have fast action, twitch based combat, but to have involving story archs, and characters.

since when does having real time combat prevent the game from keeping the focus on the story and characters? everyone seems to think if a game has real time combat, it immediately doesn't have a story. do i really need to list all the games that prove that wrong?

Eagle Racer
11-22-2005, 07:20 PM
If they go to ture turn based combat I may not buy the game. I have one of the LOTR games and it's way too tedious to wait through all the battles. I just quite playing it, because of how slow it was. I think the system is fine the way it is, but wouldn't mind the battles being more flowing. The way they are currently, I think makes them much more enjoyable than other RPG's I've played.

Manny C
11-22-2005, 08:00 PM
dude it already is turn based, its just hidden like baldur's gate

Hallucination
11-22-2005, 08:03 PM
^Believe it or not, but KOTOR is turn based. Every three seconds you get one turn. After that its your enemies turn. Its very cleverly disguised don't you think? ;)
@Manny C: Its like eating soup with a fork, you don't get enough of it and its very messy.
Edit: Damn, Manny C beat me to telling Eagle Racer...

Eagle Racer
11-22-2005, 09:41 PM
Duh, it's turn based. pretty obvious when in the middle of a battle every chracter stands there for 2 seconds not doing anything, then people swing some weapons for half a second then stands there for another 2.5 seconds and things start all over again........................

yeah, but it's not a true turn based (one chracter attacks at a time) system like some other games where you get a lot of time to decide what to do. it's quick and if you aren't, too bad... I would like to see them shorten the turns myself, and leave things up to being time to complete the attack or whatever instead, for how quickly things move. Introduce a "speed" factor in the game, like you see in other RPG's.

lukeiamyourdad
11-22-2005, 10:21 PM
of course the harcore gamer will, like i said earlier, the casual gamer may have no knowledge whatsoever of D20 or any of the goings on behind the scenes of KOTOR combat, they simply hire kotor off the shelves and play it. When it gets to a battle they're gonna say "what the hell is this, why cant i hide behind this wall while i shoot, this is stupid".

Or he might not be bothered at all. I came in KotOR without any knowledge of the D20 system and haven't even touched either Baldur's Gate or NWN.
It didn't bother me, as I don't think people are as bothered with it as you make it sound.
I think "casual gamers" know more about RPGs then you make them sound like.


everyone's all pent up on keeping it a "pure RPG" so that people who are completely uncoordinated dont suck at it. But look at Fable, that's got real time combat and that's still almost completely dependant on your skills. Being quick and twitchy is all well and good but if you're guy is only doing like 4 damage to a guy with 200 hp you're not going to get very far.

More or less. I'll take Diablo 2 for example. The game relies on skills, true, but anyone who has ever been in a duel knows that the guy who clicks first wins or the one who can click faster.
It removes emphasis on skills.




Yeah man but do you? other than a clearly biased forum you can't honestly make an accurate guess at the actual number of people who'd like it or not.

You obviously think I don't have a life outside of my room.
I know a lot of casual gamers who have played KotOR, some like it, some less. Overall, nobody was bothered that much by the combat system. You're right though, it can't be an accurate picture.


well the simple fact is that the more options you have, the better your control is over what the character does, i think that qualifies as more "control" quite easily.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=control

my argument is that combat is too detached from the player, whatever means that is reduced i don't mind, all ive argued is that it wouldn't be a bad thing. (good even)

I don't think it's too detached. It's different. You might have less abilities to do what you want but that can be changed with more options or abilities to play with the environment, without changing the current D20 system.

yeah but thats kind of like chucking a drop of water at the fireplace to put it out,

4 moves instead of 3 for a 40 hour game
5 or 6 animations

At least 3 animations for every attack, 4 for the regular.
3x3+4=13

You do notice the repetition of animations, but that happens with every game in history. Animations tend to repeat themselves.


what im saying isnt that specific, all i said was that there isnt enough control in the combat, there's plenty of ways to increase it. Like make it a real time 3rd person style like Fable or Jade Empire. or if you dont want to have to rely on your senses at all, then keep the D20 system but expand it.

Read definition of control. We can and we should keep the D20 system, but nobody is resistant to improving the current system. What people truly fear is the total change of the system, moving away from turn-based.


since when does having real time combat prevent the game from keeping the focus on the story and characters? everyone seems to think if a game has real time combat, it immediately doesn't have a story. do i really need to list all the games that prove that wrong?

You're right, since KotOR does have a real-time combat system. Though turn-based, everything happens in real time.

Hallucination
11-22-2005, 11:24 PM
At least 3 animations for every attack, 4 for the regular.
3x3+4=13
Correction: 3x3+4=13x3=39. You forgot that there are 3 different lightsaber types (dueling, dual-wielding and double-bladed). ;)

lukeiamyourdad
11-22-2005, 11:29 PM
Correction: 3x3+4=13x3=39. You forgot that there are 3 different lightsaber types (dueling, dual-wielding and double-bladed). ;)


Oh right, thanks for the heads up :)

Hallucination
11-22-2005, 11:33 PM
^^No problem. :) The D20 system needs all the support from us "hardcore" gamers :D.

JediMaster12
11-23-2005, 02:26 PM
You got that right. Leave the original combat mode in the third KOTOR. I liked how it appeared in the first two and even though it is turn based, it looks real and neat at certain angles. :slsaber:

Manny C
11-23-2005, 07:14 PM
Or he might not be bothered at all. I came in KotOR without any knowledge of the D20 system and haven't even touched either Baldur's Gate or NWN.
It didn't bother me, as I don't think people are as bothered with it as you make it sound.
I think "casual gamers" know more about RPGs then you make them sound like.


I was the same, it only bothered me for a bit but then i got used to it, its really a minor inconvenience, but my argument is that it shouldnt be an inconvenience at all.



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=control


you know that really doesnt prove me wrong at all, in fact it really does the opposite: "To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct."

more options means increased ability to direct your characters' actions, ie, more control


I don't think it's too detached. It's different. You might have less abilities to do what you want but that can be changed with more options or abilities to play with the environment, without changing the current D20 system.


The bold is wherin lies my "quam" with the combat system. I suggested changes like that earlier but redhawke said it doesnt follow the "d20 rules" or something.


You do notice the repetition of animations, but that happens with every game in history.


bold statement, one i would have chosen to avoid. Half-life 2 has a simulated physics engine, ie there are no "animations" so thus no repetitiveness.



Read definition of control. We can and we should keep the D20 system, but nobody is resistant to improving the current system. What people truly fear is the total change of the system, moving away from turn-based.


In the end its a matter of preference. There's no way they're gonna change the combat system that much because its too big a step away from the other two, but as someone who gets tired of clicky clickies, id prefer something real time, more exciting and variable in my opinion.



You're right, since KotOR does have a real-time combat system. Though turn-based, everything happens in real time.

ie "hidden turn-based"

lukeiamyourdad
11-24-2005, 01:49 AM
I was the same, it only bothered me for a bit but then i got used to it, its really a minor inconvenience, but my argument is that it shouldnt be an inconvenience at all.

It's not. It's like getting into any game ever. You have different interfaces, different weapons, etc.
Getting used to the new setting is always present or else, you'd have every game with the same HUD, same weapons, same everything.


you know that really doesnt prove me wrong at all, in fact it really does the opposite: "To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct."

more options means increased ability to direct your characters' actions, ie, more control

Yeah, I thought about it for a long while before adding it in. Still, I don't think I can qualify that as "control".
Anyway, it's a debate on terminology, so let's leave it at that.



The bold is wherin lies my "quam" with the combat system. I suggested changes like that earlier but redhawke said it doesnt follow the "d20 rules" or something.

Meh, things can change with or without RedHawke's purism :p

It's my opinion that we should be able to play with the environment and setting.

bold statement, one i would have chosen to avoid. Half-life 2 has a simulated physics engine, ie there are no "animations" so thus no repetitiveness.

You're partly right, but the movement of various characters are animations. There is no death animation but that doesn't mean there's no animations at all. We can go as far as to qualify the SMG firing the same way all the time as repetitive animations or seeing your hand throw a grenade. Same grenade throwing animation, all the time.



In the end its a matter of preference. There's no way they're gonna change the combat system that much because its too big a step away from the other two, but as someone who gets tired of clicky clickies, id prefer something real time, more exciting and variable in my opinion.

Well, you might have to click again. Unless they use a system where you play almost exclusively with your keyboard and/or controller, you'll click to attack, right-click to defend, etc. You get the idea, and for RPGs, it usually is the regular setting.
Really though, I play a lot of FPS and RTS and that mostly involves clicking.

I do think that if some people think the combat is unexciting it might be linked to the difficulty of the game. On normal setting, the game is too easy the second you get a lightsaber and force powers. It becomes some sort of weird "hack-n-slash" in turn base.
You mow down mobs of enemies in one or two hits so the combat system has no time to really flourish.


ie "hidden turn-based"

Doesn't make it less real-time.

RedHawke
11-24-2005, 04:37 AM
I suggested changes like that earlier but redhawke said it doesnt follow the "d20 rules" or something.
Meh, things can change with or without RedHawke's purism :p
Not unless WotC changes the D20 rules! :sign2:

Rules Lawyers FTW! :xp:

JediMaster12
11-29-2005, 04:36 PM
Leave the RPG ALONE!!! I like it as I've stated in several posts. Combination games are for those who like JA or Episode 3

BattleDog
11-29-2005, 08:42 PM
While I don't feel the need to jump into this debate with both feet I feel I should point out that in real life "combat" is "turn based."

Here's what happens if two guys in real life having a sword fight attack at the same time: They both die, one might die quicker but they both still get layed out.

Hell, its even something I do when foil fencing, if I have a particually tougth opponent I force my attack, i.e. when he goes to parry I drop my blade and carry on lunging. I hit him first but in real life we'd both be pushing up daisies.

If someone swings at you you block, if they shoot at you you duck. If they attack you defend, if they defend you attack. People who just go hack hack in JO or JA last about 30 seconds in MP against someone who knows what they're doing.

Jae Onasi
12-11-2005, 02:58 PM
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha; Can't even beat the Turret Mini-Game; Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.

Hey, no kidding, this happened to me one time early on when I'd only played the game a few times. I was playing with my son and when we left Taris, we could not beat the fighters to save our lives. We must have reloaded like 10 times. Now, I'd beaten it before, so I couldn't understand the problem--thought it might be my computer (I'm playing on a laptop with the bare minimum graphics card).
Then I realized that every time I shot up 2 fighters, 2 more would spawn in some really weird glitch. I finally had to uninstall/reinstall the game in order to get it to work properly again. Of course, that also gave me the incentive to try mods (I didn't want to mod the game before playing it a few times, and believe it or not, K1 was my first real PC game).

Now, I'd like to keep the D20 system the way it is. I feel like I'm managing enough just picking out the various attacks and Force powers--I don't want to have to manage every single move, too. Except for the boss fights, I like the battles to be over fairly quickly.
Now I have to go play the game instead of talking about playing the game.... :noel:

OoMandaloreoO
12-11-2005, 04:14 PM
Mandalore wants the combat to stay the same. Only enhanced

a_nazgul
12-11-2005, 11:54 PM
The combat system is great, but more movement of the fighters would be great, like in the movies!!!

JediMaster12
12-12-2005, 12:38 PM
I don't think that's feasible. Wouldn't that end up altering the system anyway?

Emperor Devon
12-17-2005, 03:44 AM
I was the same, it only bothered me for a bit but then i got used to it, its really a minor inconvenience, but my argument is that it shouldnt be an inconvenience at all.

I think a little story would best describe this situation. There was once a happy little Jedi Knight, but he thought all that peace and serenity stuff was an inconvenience... so he ran off and joined the Sith, and was no longer bothered with that incnovenience.

My point: Pick a game that's not as "inconvenient" for you. If you do not like RPG combat, then I regret to inform you...

KOTOR IS AN RPG.

If you like FPS combat, then go play a FPS game. It's that simple. You're basically trying to turn a game into something that already exists, but you don't seem to know it. I believe the proper quote for this situation is "reinventing the wheel".

you know that really doesnt prove me wrong at all, in fact it really does the opposite: "To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct."

You still don't have the full definition. It can be in a physical or mental sense.

more options means increased ability to direct your characters' actions, ie, more control

Are you saying you prefer swining lightsabers in all sorts of angles to developing your character's personality?

The bold is wherin lies my "quam" with the combat system. I suggested changes like that earlier but redhawke said it doesnt follow the "d20 rules" or something.

He was correct... If you change the D20 rules, they no longer are the D20 rules.

Change: To lay aside, abandon, or leave for another; switch: change methods; change sides.
To transfer from (one conveyance) to another: change planes.

bold statement, one i would have chosen to avoid. Half-life 2 has a simulated physics engine, ie there are no "animations" so thus no repetitiveness.

I'm not sure you understand... in video games, when a character moves, it is an animation. If a characters moves forward, that is considered an animation.

id prefer something real time, more exciting and variable in my opinion.

Then go play a game that's more "real time". IT'S THAT SIMPLEl.

ie "hidden turn-based"

more options means increased ability to direct your characters' actions, ie, more control

Can anyone detect a bit of inconsistency here? :rolleyes:

Manny C
12-17-2005, 06:37 AM
I think a little story would best describe this situation. There was once a happy little Jedi Knight, but he thought all that peace and serenity stuff was an inconvenience... so he ran off and joined the Sith, and was no longer bothered with that incnovenience.

thats the worst metaphor ive ever heard. In essence, id depicts nothing more than your opinion: "RPG COMBAT=GOOD, REAL TIME COMBAT=EVIL"


My point: Pick a game that's not as "inconvenient" for you.

really, your story has nothing to do with that point, but just to humour you: firstly, read through my posts before you make wild generalizations like "the game is inconvenient". The game is not inconvenient. I found adjusting to the combat mechanism inconvenient, and i find having to watch the same animations continuously inconvenient. Jesus, ud think the combat system was the only part of the game.

KOTOR IS AN RPG.
so is deus ex. so is jade empire.
regardless, ur argument is redundant, the classification of the game has already been made. You cant say "i like rpgs, i like FPS, lets change this game into an FPS", because its really not that simple. I like games with an excellent sense of immersion, a great story, great characters and is fun to play. I just so happen to find more enjoyment in real time combat style action than RPG action, simple as that. But that doesnt mean ill not play kotor because i find the combat system tiresome, fact remains that its an awesome game because of its other qualities, i dont "do or die" on a game based on one of its faculties.



If you like FPS combat, then go play a FPS game. It's that simple. You're basically trying to turn a game into something that already exists, but you don't seem to know it. I believe the proper quote for this situation is "reinventing the wheel".

Again, its stupid to abandon/hail a game based on one of its attributes. and what is this idiotic assumption that "real time=FPS". It's a jedi game, how can you use a shooter style game for a weapon that doesnt "shoot", thats why ive always thought the jedi knight series is stupid. I feel like a game about jedi knights would benefit from the ability to directly control the lightsaber, others like the way it is. Take it or leave it.


You still don't have the full definition. It can be in a physical or mental sense.


i have the definition thats relevant to this discussion.


Are you saying you prefer swining lightsabers in all sorts of angles to developing your character's personality?


no. dont see what more options has to do with swinging wildly and dont see what it has to do with personality. To be honest this is really starting to bug me. How does changing the combat system affect the rest of the game in any way? i honestly dont understand this preconceived notion that if a game has real time combat that it cant have character progression or a story. Hasnt anyone played fable or deus ex? Also, havent i made it clear that i HATE the idea of swinging a lightsaber at all angles, that is not what real time saber combat should be like. JEDI ACADEMY HAS POORLY DESIGNED GAMEPLAY!!!!!


He was correct... If you change the D20 rules, they no longer are the D20 rules.

to be honest i dont really understand the d20 rules they have in starwars RPG. I play vampire the masquerade, and thats really adaptable to anything a character does. An action will always require the use of a skill and an attribute, and you just add them up and thats how many dice you use and your successes determine wether u succeeded or failed. This system is adaptable to pretty much any action. I dont really get the D20 thing.


I'm not sure you understand... in video games, when a character moves, it is an animation. If a characters moves forward, that is considered an animation.

lol no its not. by "animation" we mean a prescripted action that has been written by an animator. like in say, goldeneye, when an enemy dies, he sometimes falls to his knees then on his face. That is a death animation that has been prescripted.


Then go play a game that's more "real time". IT'S THAT SIMPLEl.

dont take it out of context mate, i was talking about the COMBAT SYSTEM. not the game as a whole.



Can anyone detect a bit of inconsistency here? :rolleyes:
nope, neither of these contradict themselves, and they're both taken out of context. What are you, micheal moore's protege?

can we get redhawke and luke back in here? they've got much more guided and sensical discussion to add.

Emperor Devon
12-17-2005, 02:34 PM
thats the worst metaphor ive ever heard. In essence, id depicts nothing more than your opinion: "RPG COMBAT=GOOD, REAL TIME COMBAT=EVIL"

You are incorrect again. The point is that you seem to want to turn KOTOR into an action-based game, even though action-based games already exist.

firstly, read through my posts before you make wild generalizations like "the game is inconvenient".

I'm sorry. I thought you meant it when you said it was inconvenient.

so is deus ex. so is jade empire.

True. However, most RPGs do not use that kind of combat.

I like games with an excellent sense of immersion, a great story, great characters and is fun to play. I just so happen to find more enjoyment in real time combat style action than RPG action, simple as that.

http://jade.bioware.com/

no. dont see what more options has to do with swinging wildly and dont see what it has to do with personality.

Lucasarts wanted KOTOR II to have more features than the first game, but still have a good plot. Unfortunately, the time they spent adding the new features could've been spent on improving the story, and making it so that fans would not have to restore the cut content. It seems that Lucasarts doesn't care much about finishing both aspects of the game. If they spend even more time focusing on the combat, there'll probably be less time for them to work on the story.

To be honest this is really starting to bug me. How does changing the combat system affect the rest of the game in any way?

Because for both KOTOR games, they've used the same combat system. If KOTOR III doesn't, it won't feel like KOTOR as much.

i honestly dont understand this preconceived notion that if a game has real time combat that it cant have character progression or a story.

Scoll upward a bit, and you'll see the reason.

Hasnt anyone played fable or deus ex?

No. I heard Fable was an awful game, though.

to be honest i dont really understand the d20 rules they have in starwars RPG.

I dont really get the D20 thing.

:eyeraise:

Yet another reason why KOTOR doesn't seem to be the game for you...

lol no its not. by "animation" we mean a prescripted action that has been written by an animator. like in say, goldeneye, when an enemy dies, he sometimes falls to his knees then on his face. That is a death animation that has been prescripted.

And when characters move forward, their legs go back and forth. That is an animation. The animators had to write it.

What are you, micheal moore's protege?

No, I am not.

Arátoeldar
12-17-2005, 04:38 PM
I fully agree with this statement.
There is an evolution of the genre, but evolution does not mean changing everything.
Of all the actual RPGs, KotOR has one of the best combat system.

Look at some Japanese RPGs, mainly the Final Fantasy serie. Stand at point x, move towards enemy, attack, return to point x.
It's even more horrendous then KotOR, yet there's less whining about it. Why? Great story and characters, just like KotOR.

It's like some heretics who dare say that Civ should be made into an RTS. The series of Civilization games are management games so combat isn't the main focus, just like real RPGs.

Or even better, Rainbow Six doesn't have enough fast-paced action. It's not supposed to have fast-paced action.

I hate with a passion what Ubisoft has done to consolizing the R6/GR series. Taking a slow paced real tactical shooter and turning it into a fast action FPS with squad support. Revan Shield will be the last game in that series that I will buy.

So far as Dues Ex is concerned most gamers consider it to be a FPS-RPG hybrid.

Fable, from what I understand is a decent game if you forget all that was promised and cut from the game.

I have no problems with how the combat is done in KotOR series. I wouldn't mind seeing something like what Bethesda is doing with TES IV:Oblivion. However I have no idea how it would be implemented in a KotOR game.

http://morrowind.com/codex/team_teamprof_stevem.htm

Manny C
12-17-2005, 07:33 PM
You are incorrect again. The point is that you seem to want to turn KOTOR into an action-based game, even though action-based games already exist.
hold on, i think you need to reread my posts. For some twisted reason you seem to think the entire game hinges solely on the combat system, I don't know if you've played the games (you wouldnt think this if you had) but a very large portion of the game is in conversation, developing character, getting to know people learning the story. Now, if the combat system were to change, then none of these other facets would be affected in ANY way. In fact, if i had the programming skill id try and make a mod which implements real time combat into kotor 1, and in doing so i wouldnt touch any of the game in which there is no combat.



I'm sorry. I thought you meant it when you said it was inconvenient.

Apology accepted, but i really think you should actually go back and read through the posts before shooting your mouth off. If you had, you would have realised this entire discussion is about the COMBAT SYSTEM. You don't need to change the script, characters locations or anything like that to change the combat system.


True. However, most RPGs do not use that kind of combat.

your point? Since when should "most dont do it" be a legitimate reason for something not to be done. If everyone had that attitude, the gaming industry would be a dull world indeed.


http://jade.bioware.com/

is this supposed to prove something? Ive played through jade empire, its good but its not as good as KOTOR. Firstly, KOTOR is a starwars game, and i love starwars, secondly, kotor has better characters and story, plus it's more immersive, its bigger and the locations are better. To me, all of those facets are more important than the combat system.


Lucasarts wanted KOTOR II to have more features than the first game, but still have a good plot. Unfortunately, the time they spent adding the new features could've been spent on improving the story, and making it so that fans would not have to restore the cut content. It seems that Lucasarts doesn't care much about finishing both aspects of the game. If they spend even more time focusing on the combat, there'll probably be less time for them to work on the story.
hmmmm. Ok i think some things need to be made clear to you. Firstly "Lucasarts" didnt make the game, they funded a company called "Obsidian Entertainment" to develop the game, who created what we now know as "Kotor 2". The reason there's so much content cut out is not because "they spent too much time on features" but that Lucasarts (the publisher) pushed for an early release date so the game would be out well before the new movie in order to make more sales. This meant Obsidian didnt have enough time to finish the game completely and had to cut alot of stuff out.



Because for both KOTOR games, they've used the same combat system. If KOTOR III doesn't, it won't feel like KOTOR as much.
Yes, it would be different, thats already been debated, but its a matter of opinion as to whether it would be for the better.



Scoll upward a bit, and you'll see the reason.

By this i suppose you mean "more time on combat means less time working on story". But the thing is that the people who code the combat system and animate the game aren't the same people who write the story. The people who write the story are "writers" hired by obsidian to write the main story and the script, not the programmers and animators. Plus, if lucasarts learn from their mistake from KOTOR 2 (which they wont, as it didnt affect sales too much, and thats the only way things ever change on the publisher's end), they'll give the development team as much time as they need to get the game completely finished.


No. I heard Fable was an awful game, though.

It's like aratoelar said, it was a good game if you forget about all the hype. I happened to play the game without hearing all the hype so for me i thought it was great. It probably has the most in depth character customization of any RPG, thats for sure. how interesting, that sort of contradicts something i read earlier:
Are you saying you prefer swining lightsabers in all sorts of angles to developing your character's personality?


:eyeraise:
Yet another reason why KOTOR doesn't seem to be the game for you...

God almighty! Unlike a judgmental grandmother, i don't immediate deem a game as "for me" or "not for me" because i dont like something about it. Not only that, but since when do you have to completely understand the mathematical probability mechanism behind the combat in kotor in order for the game to be suitable to play? Ill wager most of the people who bought and played kotor havent even heard the phrase "D20". Could you have said anything more stupid?


And when characters move forward, their legs go back and forth. That is an animation. The animators had to write it.

thats about as relevant as your comment about the "control" definition. tiny movements like that are NOT what me and luke were talking about. Don't butt into a discussion then have no idea what the discussion is about.


Originally Posted by Manny C
What are you, micheal moore's protege?

No, I am not.
Ever heard the phrase "rhetorical question"? At any rate, the point of saying it is that pretty much everything uve said has either been irrelevant, already said and in a better way, or is a response to something ive said taken out of context because you havent read through the discussion. Please read through it before you start posting, you'll save us alot of time.

Emperor Devon
12-17-2005, 08:17 PM
hold on, i think you need to reread my posts. For some twisted reason you seem to think the entire game hinges solely on the combat system,

I do not think that. I thought that you did, but you seem to have cleared the matter up.

Apology accepted,

It was actually sarcasm. I thought you could tell.

your point?

You claimed that not all RPGs use a traditional RPG combat system, and then pointed them out. I then told you that most RPGs do not use an action-based combat system. [/QUOTE]

Since when should "most dont do it" be a legitimate reason for something not to be done.

Quite the contrary. KOTOR I and II use the same graphics engine. "Most don't do it" would actually be one of many good reasons for KOTOR III not to use a new one.

Ive played through jade empire, its good but its not as good as KOTOR.

Strange. Jade Empire met more of your requirements for a good game than KOTOR.

kotor has better characters and story,

Personally, I found quite a few Jade Empire characters superiror to the ones in KOTOR. For example, Death's Hand was much better than Darth Bandon. However, I found KOTOR to be a better game than Jade Empire.

Firstly "Lucasarts" didnt make the game,

Actually, some members of Lucasarts worked on KOTOR II. It is true that Obsidian did the majority of the work. Given how you know this, I thought it would be unnecessary to identify Obsidian and simply say "they". Perhaps I need to be more clear when speaking to you.

The reason there's so much content cut out is not because "they spent too much time on features" but that Lucasarts (the publisher) pushed for an early release date so the game would be out well before the new movie in order to make more sales.

The early release date was a reason, but they actually spent quite a bit of time working on the new features for KOTOR II.

But the thing is that the people who code the combat system and animate the game aren't the same people who write the story. The people who write the story are "writers" hired by obsidian to write the main story and the script, not the programmers and animators.

That is true, but then the factor of money comes in. I imagine that Obsidian did not work for a low price. While Lucasarts may be rich, based on their behavior, they seem like the people who want to keep cost to a minimum. If the new features for KOTOR II were deemed unnecessary, that money could have gone into hiring more writers.

God almighty! Unlike a judgmental grandmother, i don't immediate deem a game as "for me" or "not for me" because i dont like something about it.

That's odd. Most people tend to buy games they like.

Not only that, but since when do you have to completely understand the mathematical probability mechanism behind the combat in kotor in order for the game to be suitable to play?

You said that you did not understand the D20 system. I assumed by that you meant the combat system itself, since that is what you said. Now you're going on about the mathematics of it. Where did that come from?

You inconsistency is destroying your arguments. You might want to work on that a bit before you post a reply.

thats about as relevant as your comment about the "control" definition. tiny movements like that are NOT what me and luke were talking about.

Technically, they are animations.

Manny C
12-17-2005, 09:03 PM
I do not think that. I thought that you did, but you seem to have cleared the matter up.
sigh:


The point is that you seem to want to turn KOTOR into an action-based game, even though action-based games already exist.

Are you saying you prefer swining lightsabers in all sorts of angles to developing your character's personality?
You're basically trying to turn a game into something that already exists, but you don't seem to know it. I believe the proper quote for this situation is "reinventing the wheel".

in all of these quotes, you have conveyed the opinion that changing the combat system will mean the game will no longer be an RPG, but will be an "action game". Do you even know what an RPG actually is? theres more to it than turn based action and numbers and dice rolling im afraid.

It was actually sarcasm. I thought you could tell.

did you even read the rest of that sentence? Do you have selective eyesight or something? you only read what you want to and ignore what refutes your argument. In case you missed it, here ill make it easier for you:

but i really think you should actually go back and read through the posts before shooting your mouth off. If you had, you would have realised this entire discussion is about the COMBAT SYSTEM. You don't need to change the script, characters locations or anything like that to change the combat system.


You claimed that not all RPGs use a traditional RPG combat system, and then pointed them out. I then told you that most RPGs do not use an action-based combat system.
i noticed that, thankyou. but do you actually have a point or was it just for the sake of it?


Quite the contrary. KOTOR I and II use the same graphics engine. "Most don't do it" would actually be one of many good reasons for KOTOR III not to use a new one.

hold on a minute. So u said most RPG's dont use a real time combat system, which can only mean you're saying they shouldnt change the combat system because its not common, now you're saying the reason they should keep a two year old graphics engine is because its UNcommon? not only is that self contradicting, but it also goes on about the graphics engine which has nothing to do with this discussion.


Strange. Jade Empire met more of your requirements for a good game than KOTOR.
what do you know about my "requirements for a good game". Ive made it so blatantly clear that i value story, characters and immersion over combat, and where it counts, kotor beats Jade Empire in my opinion. Don't pressume to dictate my opinion.


Personally, I found quite a few Jade Empire characters superiror to the ones in KOTOR. For example, Death's Hand was much better than Darth Bandon. However, I found KOTOR to be a better game than Jade Empire.
well thats entirely a matter of opinion, but your comparison doesnt make much sense. Darth Bandon is a very minor character in KOTOR, he's not "KOTOR's version of death's hand". when i say the characters, im talking about major characters like the party members and the main villains, of which darth bandon is not.


Actually, some members of Lucasarts worked on KOTOR II. It is true that Obsidian did the majority of the work. Given how you know this, I thought it would be unnecessary to identify Obsidian and simply say "they". Perhaps I need to be more clear when speaking to you.
sigh, uve missed the point again. you wrote a paragraph on why kotor 2's story suffered because the game developers spent too much time on "new features" which is wrong.


The early release date was a reason, but they actually spent quite a bit of time working on the new features for KOTOR II.
are you saying they shouldn't introduce new features? keep the game completely the same and just have a new story? Why the hell am i even bothering to argue with an opinion like that?


That is true, but then the factor of money comes in. I imagine that Obsidian did not work for a low price. While Lucasarts may be rich, based on their behavior, they seem like the people who want to keep cost to a minimum. If the new features for KOTOR II were deemed unnecessary, that money could have gone into hiring more writers.
the kotor series has always been about story, and the focus will always stay that way. Lucasarts know this and they aren't going to boycott the selling feature of the series for the sake of "new features".


That's odd. Most people tend to buy games they like.

that really has to be a joke. You can't possibly be that stupid. Is english your first language? because you clearly dont seem to be interpreting simple sentences properly. Since when does "there's a part of the game i dont like" mean "i dont like the game".

im getting the impression that the combat system is the REASON you play kotor and that its the single most important factor. Can we get someone else in here to offer a third party opinion?

You said that you did not understand the D20 system. I assumed by that you meant the combat system itself, since that is what you said. Now you're going on about the mathematics of it. Where did that come from?
lol you just made it perfectly clear that you don't even know what the D20 system is yourself. Even so, you would have found out HAD YOU READ THE REST OF THIS DISCUSSION. Go back and read RedHawke's definition of the D20 system.

You inconsistency is destroying your arguments. You might want to work on that a bit before you post a reply.

this might be a sad fact to face, but in the little time you've been in this discussion you've misunderstood simple sentences, completely ignored points which refute your argument, brought up completely irrelevant things, contradicted yourself and brought up arguments which have already been dealt with and with better eloquence than you seem capable of. I beg of you, read the rest of the posts in this discussion BEFORE you post again, it will firstly answer plenty of your questions and clarify things for you.


Technically, they are animations.
i cant be bothered repeating myself so ill just cut and paste it:
"thats about as relevant as your comment about the "control" definition. tiny movements like that are NOT what me and luke were talking about."

if luke had a problem with my definition of animations, he would have said so, stop wasting my time.

Darth333
12-17-2005, 09:10 PM
Emperor Devon & Manny C: you're welcomed to give your opinion about the game but play nice. Flaming won't be tolerated.

lukeiamyourdad
12-17-2005, 09:10 PM
Now now, everyone needs to take a deep breath, calm down and act rationally or else I'll ask someone to end this flamefest.

EDIT: :fist: D333 :fist: Just seconds before...

Manny C
12-17-2005, 09:15 PM
lol sorry guys, it just frustrates me when someone replies into a discussion without reading whats already been replied. To be honest i reckon this discussion has been pretty well exhausted, it might be a good idea to lock it.

Vladimir-Vlada
12-17-2005, 09:30 PM
^No. I have a few things to say myself:

Sorry, people. But MannyC has a point in a way. Even though I know that we will never get the kind of Deus Ex or Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines (don't lie, Vampire is in a very large part, in fact, and RPG) still there are some things that you missed about the D20 system.

I watched how this thread progressed and regretted every second that I can't participate here. I remember that it began with the 'Combat' thread where I proclaimed out of dis-knowledge that KOTOR should be an 'FPS' (by the way, when you use a sword in a game that is not FPS). After several posts I was defeated by RedHawke and lukeiamyourdad; and to my shame, I had to admit defeat. But I did it in the worst possible way: I started supporting the D20 system. I was ashamed at how I turned out to be such a fool that doesn't know anything. And I saw this thread and posted here a not honest answer. I wanted to support MannyC earlier, but I was afraid of being defeated again by those two, so I withdrew. But as time progressed I decieded "That's it! I'm going to fight." And I wanted to start here... BUT I first did some research on the D20 system and found some pretty interesting things. I did this to arm myself and come out and say it.
Two to be precise:

I read the rules about Combat Basics and found something called Attacks of opprotunity, Threatening Areas. Here is how it goes:
Threatened Area
A character threatens the area into which it can make a melee attack, even when it is not a character's action. An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened area may provoke an attack of opportunity from a character. A small or medium sized character normally has a 5-foot threat radius. "Reach weapons" and "natural reach" can change the threatened area.
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity by Moving
If a character moves through (not simply into) or out of a threatened area, a character usually provokes an attack of opportunity.
If all a character does during that character's turn is make a normal move or a double move (not a run), the space that the character started out in is not considered threatened.
If a character's entire move for the round is 5 feet the 5 foot move does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Provoking an Attack of Opportunity by Taking an Action
A character taking some kinds actions provokes attacks of opportunity, as described in the rules for each action type.
Making an Attack of Opportunity
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and a character can only make one per round. The character does not have to make an attack of opportunity if the character doesn't want to. The character makes the attack of opportunity at the character's normal base attack bonus.

As far as I remember; I don't recall seeing anything like 'Aim at this part of the body to initate a move of high chance of achieving'. As far as I remember, there was nothing that told you how to move anywhere.

Full attack [Full][AoO: No]
Description: If a character gets more than one attack per action, the character must use the full attack action to use those additional attacks. A character does not need to specify the targets of a the attacks ahead of time. A character can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
The character may take a 5 ft. step before, after, or between the attacks.
If a character gets multiple attacks based on a character's base attack bonus, the character must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack Action: After a character's first attack, if the character has not yet taken a 5-foot step, a character can decide to move instead of making a character's remaining attacks.
The character uses each attack to attack an opponent in a space that character threatens. The attack roll is:
d20 + Attack modifiers vs. AC of target
Attack modifiers consist of the character's base attack bonus, size adjustment, strength adjustment, and any other bonuses that apply to the attack roll.
A natural 1 on the d20 is always a miss, and a natural 20 on the d20 is always a hit.
If the modified attack roll is equal to or greater than the AC of the target, the attack is successful. The attack may also be a Threat. See Critical Hits and Dealing Damage, below, for more details.
If the character is attacking an armed opponent while unarmed, the character provokes an immediate attack of opportunity from the target which is resolved before the character's attack. Note that under certain circumstances, a character attacking without a weapon is still considered "armed".
A character can choose to fight defensively when taking the full attack action. If a character does so, the character takes a -4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round.

As far as I have read, it says that it is up to the player to decide what kind of a Attack to perform and which threatened area to attack.

So I ask you: What is the difference between the D20 system and the one in Vampire: Bloodlines? If you use the same attack type in KOTOR just like in Vampire, there won't be much of a difference. But how can the defense be configured you say? Let the computer do it, that's the only thing that can be done.

Manny C
12-17-2005, 09:44 PM
as far as i know, the only difference is that vampire uses 10 sided dice instead of 20 sided dice.

Vladimir-Vlada
12-17-2005, 09:52 PM
My point exatcly. The only difference I see will happen is a visual one. RPG combat systems aren't defined by the way of issuing attack orders; but by the way of performing them. In Vampire: Bloodlines what do you do? You walk up to them and press a button: The character attacks and the opponent recieves a limited ammount of damage. In KOTOR what do you do? You click on an opponent and the computer does the job for you.

But yet both are considered RPGs... The only difference between the Vamipre and KOTOR combat system is that in Vampire you have more freedom; But it isn't a reflex game.

lukeiamyourdad
12-17-2005, 09:54 PM
That's where issuing commands is. In KotOR, you don't simply just sit back and do nothing. You have to check out your buff, pay attention to what your NPCs are doing, choose different types of attacks, etc.

It's more interactive then you might "think".

Manny C
12-17-2005, 10:00 PM
yea but it plays more like a strategy game. My argument is that in a game about jedi, control should be more direct and less strategy driven. But they'd have to work out a decent way to control the lightsaber first, as it is there arent really any games that simulate it that well.

Vladimir-Vlada
12-17-2005, 10:01 PM
It's more interactive then you might "think".
I admit that Vamipre: Bloodlines isn't a good example because of the 'aiming', plus you didn't have a party in the game so that doesn't count.

But look at Dungeon Siege 2: You have to approach the guy and then click with you right mouse button to hit him once every time you click it; and the defense is done automaticly by your computer (depending on your luck, really). Seeing that where you approach the guy and hit him by clicking a mouse button on him once to hit him once, will make everyone stop whining. I hope I made sense.

Darca Lar
12-17-2005, 10:16 PM
I think the freedom to have in combat could be an interesting thing to see done, but it might also have some downsides to it, and although i voted yes out of curiosity, i realized that the d20 system could be one of the reasons that KOTOR is so good of a series...so against my own poll, i dont think the freedom you want in combat is a good idea, at least for the KOTOR series.

lukeiamyourdad
12-17-2005, 10:51 PM
But look at Dungeon Siege 2: You have to approach the guy and then click with you right mouse button to hit him once every time you click it; and the defense is done automaticly by your computer (depending on your luck, really). Seeing that where you approach the guy and hit him by clicking a mouse button on him once to hit him once, will make everyone stop whining. I hope I made sense.

That's actually hack'n slash.
Very different then what KotOR is all about.

I realize that in hack'n slash games, defense and stats are still very relevent, but it relies a lot more on point and click then on strategy, which is the path the KotOR games took.

RedHawke
12-18-2005, 12:46 AM
can we get redhawke and luke back in here? they've got much more guided and sensical discussion to add.
You asked for it! :xp:

Seriously though, kudos to Vlad for actually taking the time to look at the D20 rules, that shows initative and a desire for understanding...

+20 Cool Points for Vlad! :shads3:

YertyL
12-18-2005, 06:55 AM
+20 points from me too :p - I love it when a discussion does not end in flaming and the participants actually take the time to back their arguments up :)

Darca Lar
12-18-2005, 03:37 PM
Well if you dont back it up, then its not really an argument then is it?...good job...

RedHawke
12-19-2005, 02:13 AM
I love it when a discussion does not end in flaming and the participants actually take the time to back their arguments up :)
I do too! :)

Even though I don't personally like the D20 system for Star Wars, it is fine for Fantasy games. I do encourage everyone try the game out with a few victims... er'... friends, it can be quite fun.

Just so you know Vlad if they did integrate those 2 rules you listed I would personally go for it! It would make you think twice about running from combat. :D

Manny C
12-21-2005, 07:48 AM
I love it when a discussion does not end in flaming and the participants actually take the time to back their arguments up :)

that was probably a crack at me, but at any rate, its hard to back up an argument like this, which is pretty much an opinion based argument. You cant really "win" or "lose" one like this

JediMaster12
12-21-2005, 12:34 PM
you got that right but every argument has to be supported with facts.